This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, by a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area, from which the articles are promoted into the Queue.

Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. Any registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose); self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination (consider watchlisting your nomination page).

If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing:

In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began (or, if a new Good Article, the date on which it became a GA), not the date on which you make the nomination.

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.

The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.

To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.

Save the page.

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions above).

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)

In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.

Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).

View the edit history for that page

Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.

Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.

Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.

If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

@Ira.morga3: The article was nominated the day 5x expansion happened, so it meets the date criterion. I wasn't able to find any close paraphrasing. This is the nominator's first nomination so a QPQ is not required. Although I suppose both hooks are potentially interesting, I have concerns with both: for the first, I'm not sure if bloodless coups are really unusual as I'm aware it's happened before in other places. The second hook might be too obtuse for people unfamiliar with political science: it would be advisable to add a link to Waves of democracy in the said hook. Otherwise, both are cited inline: ALT0 reference is verified, while I can't access ALT1's source so for now it is accepted AGF. The article is of an appropriate length, but I would suggest that the "The Paradox to the Third Wave of Democratization" section be rewritten in a more neutral tone. As for the "The Paradox to the Third Wave of Democratization" claim itself, I would suggest that some background be written about it (i.e. who formulated that term, and in what context) as the term is discussed rather abruptly. I would also suggest that the "Coup" and "Discontent in the Gambia" sections be switched (i.e. "Discontent in the Gambia" comes before "Coup", to give background). This will be good to go once these issues have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: copied from article talk page on 23 December 2018:@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you so much for your feedback! I agree with your observation that the second hook might be a bit too obtuse for the average reader with no political science background. Perhaps instead I could use the hook "... the Coup was met with almost no opposition, both internally and internationally?" instead? I also made a few of the corrections you suggested (except for the Third Wave Democratization section, which I have not yet started to correct but I plan to). Ira.morga3 (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A series of edits were made to the article by the nominator in early December. Narutolovehinata5, did these address any of the issues you raised? Where does the nomination stand now? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I was aware of that, I was just waiting for the nominator to make a response here (which so far they have been unable to do). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

*@Narutolovehinata5:@BlueMoonset:Sorry for the delay in response, I have been home for the holidays and haven't checked my emails/notifications too often. And while I edited this page as a requirement for my course, I found myself loving this assignment and hope to continue editing for Wikipedia. But to answer the initial question, yes the changes were made and I made additional edits (to make the article flow a bit better and to make it seem like one coherent piece rather than a collection of facts). Ira.morga3 (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that Ira.morga3 added comments on November 24 and December 23 to the Talk:1994 Gambian coup d'état page, where this nomination is transcluded, rather than here on this page. I have inserted them above, so that they are all in one place, where the DYK reviewers will see them. Ira.morga3, if you could reply here going forward instead of there, that would help. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. The article looks a lot better now, but there are still some typos here and there (including a case where there's a space before a period). This will be good to go once it gets a nice copyedit. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I requested a copyedit for this article from the Guild of Copy Editors, which has been completed. There was a major problem with the final source, which I have removed; I'm unable to find it online, or any material from it. The final sentence should be properly sourced. The copy editor, Baffle gab1978, found (and fixed) some non-neutral text elsewhere in the article, but couldn't check that sentence against its sourcing. Narutolovehinata5, can you please revisit this review, and Ira.morga3, can you please find a new source for that final sentence (and address the "clarification needed" tag) and report back here (not on the article talk page) when you have done so? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The article looks much better now and I'm willing to give this the tick once the issues with the last sentence are resolved. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Alt: ...that the 1994 Gambian coup d'état is considered the paradox to Third Wave Democratization? Within the article: Because the Gambia had changed from being a democracy to a more autocratic state in that period, it is often considered paradoxical to this trend by many scholars. (My emphases.) I'd guess that the capitalization in the former and the "often" in the latter are superfluous. Those minor points aside, are "paradox to" and "paradoxical to" common constructions? I don't say that they aren't, but they're quite alien to my English. (I don't recall having encountered either.) Unfortunately I know nothing about (the) Gambia, but I dimly infer that the coup was/is considered a/the exception to third wave democratization and to this trend. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I have removed the problematic final sentence from the article, so the issues with it are no longer relevant. However, you will want to look at the above comment by Hoary before giving the article a tick. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hoary and BlueMoonset: One possible solution would be to rephrase the wording in either the article, the text, or both. As far as I know, "[a] paradox to" and "paradoxical to" are acceptable in English, but if readers find it too confusing, perhaps wording such as "an exception to" or "contrary" might work better (unless the source uses paradox instead). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, if you confirm that these uses are idiomatic in your English, then I happily withdraw my minor quibble. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

While those terms are grammatically correct, I don't think "paradox" is the right word in any case. Perhaps the better term would be something like "counterexample", as that seems to express the thought better. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear at 100px: N - Extremely hard to make out at thumbnail size. I suggest using another image.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This article needs major work before it's ready for DYK. SounderBruce 05:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm marking this for closure. This was completed as an assignment and the creator hasn't edited since November 22. The nominator has been editing, but they have not returned to this nomination. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

All sections now have a reference and it is copyedited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There are still paragraphs in the Sedimentary rocks section that lack inline citations. The citation drop is also rather mediocre, as I don't think a single citation can cover each and every one of these paragraphs 100%. A spotcheck will be needed. SounderBruce 17:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, the third paragraph under Igneous rock is still not supported by a citation. Once that's taken care of, we can ask the reviewer to resume. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

First three paragraphs in the "Igneous rocks" section and first paragraph in the "Sedimentary rocks" section still have uncited sentences/paragraphs. The article is also in need of copyediting, since I can see lots of formatting/MOS issues from a quick look. SounderBruce 07:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

These paragraphs all now include references. (Some tails of paragraphs have no reference but are common explanatory knowledge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Common explanatory knowledge either needs to be cited from resources relevant to the subject, or removed entirely in favor of letting the links explain for themselves. This has been way too drawn out, and the article really doesn't fit the freshness of DYK at this rate. SounderBruce 07:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Cynthia García Coll

... that Cynthia García Coll has shown immigrant children were more likely to graduate if they lived in states that granted TANF benefits to low-income immigrant families?

Source: [1]: "Using data from the 2002 Educational Longitudinal Study, a study of more than 16,000 U.S. school students, one of us, Alexandra Filindra, worked with Cynthia Garcia Coll and David Blanding to explore how these state-level welfare policies affected the children of immigrants. In states that granted TANF to low-income immigrants, graduation rates for children who had at least one foreign-born parent were 5.3 percentage points higher than those in states that excluded them."

Sorry, I started on this and then got super busy. It's Thanksgiving this weekend in the US. But if I can't get it wrapped up this weekend, I will by Monday at the latest. GMGtalk 22:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: No worries! I appreciate the work you've done on it already. Enjoy your Thanksgiving! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've shot an email to the subject to see if she can publicly publish fairly mundane personal details in a way that we can cite on Wikipedia. Probably 80% chance she doesn't respond, but we'll see. GMGtalk 00:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Just jotting down my thoughts before the family gets awake and moving this morning. (Apologies for probably being more anal retentive than your average QPQ.) It looks like the link to the original study in the WaPo piece is broken. But as far as I can tell, this is the only paper these three authors have published together. I don't see where the 5.3 statistic is in the original piece (or a rounded "5.2..."). So that's a little odd.

My intuition is that "TANF" is probably overly specific for the hook. It's very Ameri-centric (and an acronym that most Americans themselves probably don't recognize). Besides, the study also seems to include fairly prominent attention to the effect of Medicaid access, and the implicit suggestion seems to be that these findings should be generalizable to other similar programs. I'm fond of the succinct wording of this passage: "The children of immigrants are more likely to succeed educationally when they live in states that include immigrants into their welfare net."

That's riding the line of close paraphrasing a little bit maybe, but hopefully sticks close enough to bare information presentation that wouldn't be a problem. (There's only so many ways you can say that exact information accurately.) GMGtalk 14:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion looks great to me. Unfortunately, I'm very new to all of this & don't know how to go in and change the hook. If you are able to change it, that would be great. Let me know if not. Thanks! QuakerSquirrel (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no worries QuakerSquirrel. Thanks for helping us build a better encyclopedia! I'll wrap this up over the next couple of days and just make sure we're ready for the main page. GMGtalk 17:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and give it the tick for the alt hook since nobody has raised any objections. New enough, long enough, hook supported by news and journal source, copyvio is all titles she's held and titles of works. If there's any last minute polishing to be done on the article I'll knock it out while it's in the queue. GMGtalk 20:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vincent60030. I'm open to different wording or a different interesting fact to highlight. What do you suggest? 28bytes (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@28bytes: Can't really suggest a hook but how about adding some comparison with american citizens and like from being backlogged to surpassing them or some sort? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear Vincent60030, are you referring to both the original hooks and the suggested tweak? GMGtalk 18:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the source is nowhere near that definitive about surpassing; the "often" has to do with the first-generation immigrant kids being behind the Americans at the start, but catch up or even surpass them before elementary school is over. The article currently makes a stronger claim than the source, as does the hook. This is a college newspaper, so there should be an element of caution having to do with the source. Is the report the story is based on available to check? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is round about where I probably screwed up. I tried to make my suggested hook above be as accurate as possible, but it's difficult to be exceedingly accurate with social science related hooks and also be catchy and intuitive. GMGtalk 14:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not sure if readers could find it hooky or not, another suggestion here could be about her writing an op-ed about the hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. If that won't work out, ALT1 does seem like a good option considering there's attribution and qualifying statements there, but of course, that would be dependent on if other sources agree on it (which right now appears not to be the case). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 16:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Striking ALT1 due to the issues I noted above; the sole source it depends on does not support it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, my suggested ALT above was "...that research by Cynthia García Coll and colleagues have shown that immigrant children have more educational success when their families have access to the social safety net?" GMGtalk 17:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There's absolutely no point whatsoever in pinging people to half-written articles: if it contains material not covered by the source, then it needs to be removed from the article, Bluemoonset, not just struck through here. WP:V applies regardless of how desperate DYK is. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:F9F3:3AD8:DCAF:4519 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:F9F3:3AD8:DCAF:4519, I certainly had (and have) no intention of allowing this to be approved without the article being fixed, but also don't have the time (as you clearly do not) to research further and find the best and most accurate wording for what the source (and hopefully others) say about Coll's actual conclusions. Please remember WP:AGF. Reposting GreenMeansGo's alt hook below so it's not lost in the middle of a paragraph; perhaps they'll be willing to fix the article so it, at the least, accurately reflects the source in question. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT1:... that under the Israeli occupation of the West BankPalestinian Arabs are governed under military law and Israeli Jews under civilian law? Source: "From the occupation's very beginning, the ethnicity of the individual determined both the legal system to which a person would be subjected as well as whether the letter of the law would be enforced at all. Whereas both the land and its Palestinian inhabitants have been subjected to military rule, the Jewish settlers who took over the expropriated land have been subjected to Israeli civilian law."

All the easy stuff is fine here: the article's newness, its length, the hook format, and QPQ. However, as documented on the talk page, good-faith disputes about the article's neutrality began almost immediately after its creation and have continued for almost two months, with the latest action occurring this week. That's not something a DYK reviewer can ignore or brush aside blithely. Sometimes, an article's issues can be addressed in response to a or . Unfortunately, there's no basis to expect that here, and so I'm forced to reject it. This will no doubt disappoint the nominator and authors; it would certainly disappoint me, if I were in their shoes. If it's any help, I would suggest they reflect on what they would consider the appropriate response to a DYK nomination for an article titled (for example) Security threats to Israel originating in Palestinian territories whose neutrality they had spent seven weeks disputing on its talk page. I realize that this perspective limits the scope of what can appear in DYK; taken to an undue extreme, it would allow only entirely anodyne topics. DYK should—must—have room for uncomfortable, even controversial, topics. However, that must be balanced against the requirement that the Main Page only feature content for which there is a consensus that it meets Wikipedia policy. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that consensus is absent for this article. Lagrange613 04:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No, the article is impeccably neutral. Some editors on the talk page have tried to argue that it isn't, without success. The article has been remarkably stable since it was moved to mainspace, and that is what matters here. We go by reliable sources here – and the sources are of impeccable quality – not by what what your or my opinion might be of its neutrality. --NSH001 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Military occupations, by their nature, are always unpleasant for their victims (the people occupied). Not surprisingly, RS report that unpleasantness. Pleaase don't confuse "neutrality" with refusing to report that unpleasantness. Where else in Wikipedia do we fail to report the brutal nature of military occupation? --NSH001 (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the reviewer the article is not neutral and can't be neutral in near feature for example Jewish connection to the area is completely omitted --Shrike (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the reviewer's remarks are themselves completely neutral, and refreshing to read. I say this as main writer of that article. What he states, quite objectively, is that the article's neutrality is disputed on the talk page, not that he agrees with its lack of neutrality, (or considers it neutral). As to the hypothetical Security threats to Israel originating in Palestinian territories, were I to have edited such a page (I would probably ask for a title change: Israel as a state suffers no security threat from the WB, but Israelis have in the past been subject, within their national boundaries, to very severe threats from West Bank terrorists in quite a number of devastating attacks), I would certainly list in detail my objections, edit to ensure that the presentation was well-sourced and objectively set out and, if it were then proposed to cite a fact from it, I imagine I would have no objection. One cannot object to facts, however uncomfortable. As the present article states, polls surveying the issue have concluded that most people are not familiar with the fact that the West Bank is occupied, and, I guess (since I prefer not to 'vote' or 'promote' this DYK) there are many who would prefer this objective datum to not be known more broadly. So be it. The important thing is that the fact is registered somewhere on a world-wide global encyclopedia, and that it is not lost in the evitable confusion of so much polemical-partisan spinning.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lagrange613:, editors are free to write Security threats to Israel if there are reliable sources supporting such an article. This article has such reliable sources, and the idea that a few people on the internet find what those sources report to be uncomfortable means that we should not have a a DYK makes little sense to me. I actually dont think there have been any good faith disputes about the neutrality of the article. There are a few people making wholly unsupported claims without any actual sourcing, users engaging in OR, users wishing away the existence of an eminently notable topic. But what we do not have is any actual evidence of a neutrality dispute. Shrike's comment above is an example of that. Jewish connection to the area is completely omitted? Uh, what in the actual fuck does that have to do with the military occupation of a territory by a foreign power? Your comment, that there is not consensus that this article meets Wikipedia policy, is likewise wholly unsupported. nableezy - 17:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, one might well disagree with Lagrange's assessment, but I think it rather clear that in referring to no 'consensus' he is stating a fact: several people expressed deep unhappiness with the article, albeit in terms so generic and vague that to me, at least, it amounted simply to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But, it was reasonable enough for Lagrange to argue that the talk page indicates a lack of consensus (one that was inevitable). The gravamen of what you, NSH001 and indeed I are saying is that insisting that a NPOV consensus on a talk page is obligatory for a DYK (admittedly I have zero knowledge of such processes) opens up a difficulty, in that political dislike can effectively cancel out the publication of a fact no one, beginning with the government of Israel, denies. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There were several well reasoned objections to the rather serious POV problems on the page. A number of editors who attempted to rectify POV, as well as misrepresentation of sources, have seen their edits blanket reverted. That said editors are not edit warring over the challenged material does not mean the article is in a reasonable state. Security threats to Israel (and Jews inside and outside of the West Bank) should be covered in the article - this being one of the main reasons for the continuing occupation - I migjt work on this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Those suggestions are patently untrue. The 'rectifications' were shown to reflect stark ignorance of the topic and were analysed and replied to in detail. There were no follow-up responses of any textual significance. Security threats to Israel - a disarmed population constituting an 'existential threat' to the most technologically sophisticated and powerful army in that part of the world- have nothing to do with the occupation, but as our reviewer has suggested an article along those lines, editors who have that concern should address it by creating such a page. I only hope the sourcing standard is on a par with the one adopted here, and that care is given to setting down, as here, the factual record, not hearsay, editorializing opinions, government spin and talking heads' chattering.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was proposing "Security threats" as a thought experiment for the primary authors to help you understand why I couldn't approve the DYK. I was not "suggest[ing] an article along those lines," and I certainly was not suggesting that the different camps should retreat to their own articles where they can make the points that matter to them. WP:POVFORK rules that out specifically, and quite right, too. "If you don't like the tone of this article, go write your own" is entirely contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It is on editors to work with each other, assuming good faith even when they disagree with each other's arguments or perspectives, to produce an encyclopedia in which nobody owns articles and each article reflects a neutral point of view. An article on a contentious topic that is not produced in this spirit is unlikely to merit display on the Main Page. Lagrange613 03:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And to be clear, the article is owned solely by the method adopted, which is designed according to the strongest sourcing criteria at WP:RS, something almost universally ignored in the I/P area. The 'camps' referred to split along that line: scouring for sources that reflect one's POV, or scouring sources that provide the essential facts of a conflict, something that can be seen at a glance by comparing the percentage of recentist newspaper sourcing to long-term retrospective analysis by competent specialists. (2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is 80% based on newspaper hearsay dismissed now as misleading. The article was a splendid example of assuming good faith sinking assuming the real facts must be established) Editors here generally do not 'work with each other', unfortunately, because the criteria for encyclopedic composition are contested: some think the fundamental guideline must be 'representing national POVs' with equal weight (irrespective of the weighting of sources). Israel said this, the PA said that, utterly tedious. The problem has always been to accord priority to the factual record, which is least disputed, rather than privilege the interpretative spin placed on that record by commentators official or otherwise. Since all those objecting to the article want two contradictory things (a) radical reduction of the length and (b) major expansion of the official Israeli position, a compromise couldn't be worked. I took out 7,000 bytes as a compromise and in response 7,000 bytes were added, uncompromisingly. Facts were to be eliminated, and replaced by a standard set of memes available in all official literature. If you do not want a factual article, my advice was, then write up an article with the official viewpoint's outlines given in detail, but don't try to displace factual content with ideological content. Lastly, a large number of articles on controversial topics have been written basically by one or two hands because the AGF and methodological issues made all attempts to find a reasonable compromise impossible if the article in question was to be written to GA or FA standard. To assert that all articles must be premised on collaborative compromises by parties to 'camps' before they are accorded NPOV sounds ideal: in practice, it is in my experience, impossible. It's exactly the same problem one gets at Yugambeh - a desire to set forth a collective representation of a POV, what is thought of by an in-group as the 'truth' vs the simple outline of the known facts as reported in reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Lagrange613 your position seems to be entirely unsupported by any policy or the DYK requirements. You are simply exercising the same systemic bias that the rest of Wikipedia displays. Things uncomfortable to largely white American and or Europeans are given less attention or are shoved aside in to some corner of Wikipedia. This topic is something that countless reliable sources focus on. But because some people find the facts those reliable sources uncomfortable that means the topic does not merit display on the Main Page. Well, fine, thats your choice I suppose, but it is just one more example of bias in action. You are very purposely reducing exposure of a topic and doing so based purely on facile claims of POV, always lacking in sources and not backed by any policy. Well, great, good for you. Hurray for Wikipedia, keeping the world safe from problematic topics and people. Guess we can establish a new DYK requirement, that the material be sufficiently Zionist enough to not draw objections based on no sources but only personal opinions. nableezy - 01:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You've edited this page six times since you created it, which means you've had six opportunities to read the edit notice that comes up above the markup. That edit notice lists the nomination criteria, including that the article be within policy, and calls out WP:NPOV explicitly. So yes, I am following the DYK requirements here. Everything after your first sentence demonstrates a failure to assume good faith. In your view, no disagreement with you could possibly be based in the interests of the encyclopedia, but must instead flow from a political agenda or identity-based "discomfort." Given your failure to assume good faith, further engagement with you is unlikely to be productive. I invite closure of this nomination before the quality of the discussion degrades further.Lagrange613 03:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, but no, you are not. You are allowing some of the most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia, who have yet to actually document any NPOV issue with, hello, actual sources, to by virtue of claiming a NPOV issue to disqualify an article. There emphatically is not a NPOV issue in the article, if there were these editors would be able to substantiate their position with sources. They have not. But because the more extreme pro-Israel editors dislike this article it isnt NPOV? Where is that written down again? As far the incredibly silly In your view, no disagreement with you could possibly be based in the interests of the encyclopedia, no, not at all. My view is that if no sources are presented to demonstrate a NPOV issue then there is no NPOV issue. That actually is pretty much what NPOV says. You are very much making a decision based on political preferences. Yours or the people who have jumped up and down about supposed issues in probably the most well documented article in the entire topic area but cant bring sources that support their claims. Just nebulous, and factually wrong, horseshit like this being one of the main reasons for the continuing occupation. See any sources for such a position? Because there are a ton that refute it, that the motivation for the occupation is not "security threats" but land, water, and other resources. But no, some bullshit gets spouted off, no source is provided, but you decide that said bullshit claim disqualifies an article from DYK. nableezy - 06:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well, most retired heads of the Israeli security apparatus have gone on record saying the occupation is a threat to Israel's security. That can be documented in a minute, so the point that it is bruited about this is the reason is easily balanced out. Nonetheless, this exercise was, from the outset, unlikely to receive the accolade of a DYK and it really doesn't matter.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Reading the above, it seems that the article has been much improved since the original nomination, but that the discussion between the reviewer and the nominators has broken down. A new reviewer is needed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

No. There is no requirement that a nominator agree with a reviewer's . The nominator does not get a veto. There is no basis to believe the NPOV concerns with this article can be resolved quickly enough for this nomination to pass in a timely manner, and so it fails. The article's talk page has now spilled over into the nomination, so I repeat my request for closure. Lagrange613 12:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lagrange613: I have had no involvement in this article before today. I read this nomination page, and it struck me that your discussion with the nominators had become aggressive, hence my proposal for a new reviewer.

In your initial post you wrote "DYK should—must—have room for uncomfortable, even controversial, topics". I strongly agree. That takes hard work and investment in discussion from all sides. That appears to be happening at the article talk page. I suspect this DYK nomination is a helpful catalyst for that discussion. Let’s be patient, let the consensus building develop further, and reassess in a couple of weeks.

As you'll see below, I've agreed to your proposal. However, I'd like to push back against your position that my "discussion with the nominators had become aggressive" and hence a new reviewer was needed. A nominator's disagreement with a review is not a basis for a demand for a new review. Especially when the nominator's objection devolves into an evidence-free accusation of personal bias (as it has here), such a demand can appear to be an attempt to shop for a favorable review. I'm sure that wasn't your intent. However, I would be grateful if you would strike your request for a new reviewer as a gesture of good faith, unless you have a specific objection to my continuing the review, in which case I would like to hear it. Lagrange613 04:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Lagrange613: I have struck it as requested. I hope my proposal will have merit - thank you for agreeing to test it. Now we wait and see! Onceinawhile (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for POV, as a well-sourced section on Israeli security concerns (which are a major component of the occupation itself as well as negotiations for ending the occupation) was reverted out of the article. I'll note that this "revert happy" editing (it seems that additions by some editors are reverted on sight by other editors) are not conducive for this article to ever evolve from the POV WP:NOTESSAY it is currently.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess you wrote 'revert happy editing' re some editors with a tongue-in-cheek smile. The point made concerning systemic bias seems underlined by the wide interpretation of this article in the New York Times, whose coverage has been notoriously partisan, that even that august newspaper, with a change of editorial policy, seems finally ready to face the fact that publc discussion of the content reported in our article, but almost never marshaled in mainstream press coverage (except in Haaretz) is now possible.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The NYT has (and does) runs a wide range a op-eds from non-staff (e.g. PA president Mahmoud Abbas in 2011) - running an opinion piece does not reflect editorial endorsement. I will note that in stating that our article diverges significantly from the NYT and mainstream press (except Haaretz) - you admit a rather severe POV issue in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Two-week stay

Since my initial review, developments have only served to validate the concerns that led me to fail it. The POV concerns on the Talk page have multiplied, even spilling over into this page. The nominator has demonstrated an inability to process adverse events except as evidence of bias on others' part, boding ill for the prospect of an NPOV article emerging in the near future. Other primary contributors have expressed their desire for their interlocutors to go fork their own POVs rather than engage in trying to fix this one. Claims that this is a dispute only about reliable sources, with the primary contributors being the only ones who care about them, fly in the face of, for example, these edits. (And in any case, arguing that an article's sources are reliable does not suffice to prove the article is NPOV: reliable sources can be biased.)

However, I'm willing to entertain Onceinawhile's suggestion that this nomination itself could be a "catalyst" for developing the article into something that could gain consensus as NPOV. Therefore, I've struck my calls for closure, and, as proposed, I will reassess the NPOV question in two weeks' time. Editors have until then to edit the article and reach consensus that it reflects a neutral point of view. If that is achieved, and the article and nomination meet the rest of the DYK requirements, I will pass it at that time. Otherwise, I will fail it and expect the matter to be closed.

In my initial review, I gave an example of another, hypothetical article titled "Security threats to Israel originating in Palestinian territories". Since then, security for Israel has emerged as a subtopic of the NPOV discussion at the Talk page. If that is an important consideration for making the article NPOV, then please, by all means, address it. However, I want to restate that I was not putting the topic forward as something that I needed to see for the article to be NPOV, nor was I saying that it was or should be the only concern. It was intended as a thought experiment for the primary authors to understand my reasoning and, perhaps, put themselves in the shoes of the editors claiming the article is POV, nothing less and nothing more. The criterion for me is not that this one topic be addressed per se: the criterion is consensus that the entire article reflect a neutral point of view.

My comments about the necessity of collaboration go both (all) ways here: editors maintaining that the article is POV have an obligation to work collaboratively to improve it. If they were to spend the next two weeks stonewalling or running out the clock, I would interpret their POV claims as motivated by bad faith and weigh them accordingly when evaluating consensus.

Finally, everyone, please remember that the stakes here are much lower than they've been treated. DYK puts a link to an article on the Main Page for a few hours, generally prompting, at best, a few thousand extra views beyond what it would have gotten during that time. The outcome of this process does not "cancel out the publication" of the article and really has very little to do with its destiny. (Some content creators also think of DYK credits as chits, but if you really want them, there are much easier ways to get them than 250 kB at a time!) Lagrange613 04:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination is on hold pending outcome of the AFD. Lagrange613 02:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The AFD will close on Tuesday, unless it's extended. Unfortunately, starting Tuesday, I will be unable to edit for a few days. I ask in advance for everyone's patience until I'm able to return. Lagrange613 03:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: AfD closed as keep, so when Lagrange613 returns, it will be ready for their decision. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

TLDR: The article still has NPOV problems two and a half months since the nomination, almost one month since I began the review calling attention to the NPOV dispute, and over three weeks since I put the review on hold to test whether the dispute could be resolved quickly. Since the problems have not been resolved and will not be resolved imminently, it is time to close this nomination as unsuccessful.

Some progress has been made in reducing the volume of disputed content. However, that is not enough for NPOV; it's not even necessarily progress toward NPOV, since NPOV is about WP:BALANCE rather than raw volumes. Indeed, POV problems remain and are readily apparent, even to a non-expert like me. A few examples that jumped out as I was re-reading the article:

As noted above, multiple editors have stressed repeatedly that Israeli security concerns must be addressed for this article to reflect a neutral point of view. The primary authors seem to have conceded this point after it was raised by a keep !voter at the AFD. As the !voter suggested, a single sentence was added to the lead. The body, which the lead is supposed to summarize, is a different story. The views of Israel's "political and military establishment", presumably of some value in understanding the security concerns, are not explained, and indeed are dismissed within the article's text as "often tendentious and biased". The mainstream Israeli press is likewise described as "see[ing] themselves as actors within the Zionist movement, not as critical outsiders" (based on a quotation from a single source) and then never heard from again. By a standard argued by multiple editors and conceded by the primary authors, the article does not reflect a neutral point of view.

Indeed, the only substantial discussion of Israeli perspectives comes in the last section, Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Israeli critical judgements, which summarizes the views of the anti-Zionist WP:FRINGE. Most of the discussion is cited to a single source. This section was previously much longer before it was trimmed extensively. I highlight this edit because it exemplifies the work being done on this article: while it is a net positive for the article overall, it reveals two problems with how the work is being done that prevent progress toward NPOV. First, while it decreases the length of the POV content, it does not produce the balance necessary for the article to reflect a neutral point of view. Second, the edit summary motivates the section by saying "Readers need to know that the occupation is something many Israelis and Israeli Jews protest about, if only to avoid them falling into an antisemitic trap." In fact, readers need a neutral description of the views of Israelis and Israeli Jews that have bearing on the occupation, without WP:UNDUE weight placed on fringe views like those represented in the section. Editing that is not in service of this goal is unlikely to produce an NPOV article. (I'll add that the suggestion that antisemitism arises from readers learning what most Jews think reflects poorly on the editor who made it.)

After noting the politicization of terminology within the conflict in its first section, the article goes on to largely adopt the "Palestinian terminology" uncritically. For example, the article uses "colonialism" and its derivatives throughout in describing Israeli motives. This is just one POV; see the last paragraph of Settler colonialism#Zionism and the State of Israel for descriptions of an opposing POV, cited to multiple sources that are facially no less reliable than the academic sources cited in this article. And before you argue that that article is about Zionism and this article is about the occupation, note how the second and third paragraphs of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Settlement tie the two together. The third paragraph even explicitly calls the "Israeli term"—settlement—a "euphemism" for the true term, colonization. This article does not reflect a neutral point of view by its own standards.

These examples reveal deep, structural problems standing in the way of the article being NPOV, problems that can't be resolved just by shifting a few words around or sprinkling an extra sentence or two in the right places. Significant work is required to address these problems, work far beyond the scope that would be appropriate for or . Thus, the final answer is .

I'm going to pre-rebut a few arguments I anticipate seeing in response to this:

The article is NPOV because it was kept at AFD. Consensus at AFD was that the article should not be deleted as a WP:POVFORK; that is a lower standard than NPOV. Multiple participants !voted keep while noting POV problems in the article.

The article is NPOV because of the quantity of reliable, academic sources. As noted above, reliable sources, even academic sources, can be biased. Biased sources can be sampled and weighted to preclude a neutral point of view.

The editors alleging an NPOV violation have not brought enough sources to document their claims. Those editors have not always made their arguments effectively. However, as I've demonstrated above, the article is not NPOV by standards set out by the primary authors and within the article itself. If you're looking for sources that can point this article toward NPOV, I suppose you could start with the ones cited in the article I mentioned above, but again I'm not an expert.

You're just imposing your own agenda, or reinforcing systemic bias, or uncomfortable with the material! See above.

The article just needs more time. Yes, it needs more time to get to NPOV. But its time for DYK has run out. When an article has problems, its DYK nomination deserves to be left open for a few weeks while they are addressed; in the past, I have worked extensively with nominators to get their nominations through. But DYK is supposed to be a showcase for new or newly expanded content, and content from November is not new anymore. It would be one thing if I had any basis for thinking the problems would be resolved imminently. But from where I'm sitting, the improvements to the article since I started the review have made much more progress toward compliance with WP:TOOLONG than with WP:NPOV. (And as I've noted on the article's talk page, TOOLONG isn't even a requirement for DYK.) At this rate, NPOV is still a long way away, several months at least, and it would be inappropriate to leave a nomination open for that long. Indeed, there's a strong chance that the outcome will be the participants moving on rather than solving the problems. We have to cut this off sometime. That time has come.

However, there is still a path for this article to appear at DYK: newly promoted Good Articles are eligible. Success at GA nomination would demonstrate NPOV and presumbly imply that all other DYK requirements would be satisfied. I don't know DYK precedent well enough to know for sure whether a renomination post-GA would be allowed, but it seems to me to be within both the letter and the spirit. When and if that happens, ping me and I'll be happy to provide a positive "character witness" for the article. As many noted at the AFD, this is certainly a notable topic, and I would be glad to see it featured on the Main Page once it's ready. But it is not ready now.

I apologize for the length. The nominators have worked long and hard on this article, and they deserve to understand my reasoning. Lagrange613 05:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lagrange613: thank you for the consideration and effort put into your assessment here. Whilst I don’t entirely agree (I think we could reach consnsus on NPOV view quickly if the opposing editors would take a more constructive approach, and I have a more lenient view on timetable), I repect your judgement and the dispassionate approach. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Just on a point or two of misreading.

(a)Indeed, the only substantial discussion of Israeli perspectives comes in the last section, Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Israeli critical judgements, which summarizes the views of the anti-Zionist WP:FRINGE.

The section deals with Israeli Zionists (they accept the Zionist state as defined down to 1967) who are critical of what they perceive to be an extremist distortion of Zionism beginning with the occupation of the West Bank after 1967. I demonstrated that Icewhiz’s assertion that these were fringe was outlandishly false. When called out on this ridiculous caricature, Icewhiz had no reply. Lagrange, you took him at his word, which any Israeli mainstream person would call an example of 'extreme right-wing hyperbole'.

(c)After noting the politicization of terminology within the conflict in its first section, the article goes on to largely adopt the "Palestinian terminology" uncritically. For example, the article uses "colonialism" and its derivatives throughout in describing Israeli motives.

No. The article adopts the default pro-Israeli term 'settlement' over 93 times, throughout. Colonization/colony etc. is used 12 times, and is not a Palestinian term (the Palestinian Arabic term for settlers does not connote 'colonization'), simply because the analogy of WB and other colonizing projects is widely discussed in the academic comparative literature. Colony/colonize is, I think, used here of a settlement attempt 3 times (and could be changed in those instances to 'occupy', but there is no privileging of Palestinian usage. To the contrary.)

Generally, the worrying that NPOV is problematical here because we haven't enough 'Israeli perspectives' blames the article for being more concerned with facts and the description of mechanisms than with what spokesmen, Israeli or Palestinian, say. I've invited people to try to sketch out some statement about security concerns - I hope they are aware that Israel has never formulated a national security doctrine about the West Bank. How often do I keep having to repeat that high intelligence and strategy specialists will tell you either that the West Bank is indispensable to Israel's security, or that Israel's security requires it to disengage from the West Bank? There is no one Israeli viewpoint on security and the WB.

Finally on media coverage. There is a huge amount of literature on the massive advantage Israel has in presenting its case. It has an overwhelming number of official and semi-official bodies, with high leverage and media prominence, arguing that Western perceptions are skewed to Palestinians. Palestinians, or whoever for them, have nothing like this on the ground. No one who looks at the material in Mearsheimer and Walt's study pp.168-196 can pretend that there is some POV balance between the ways the parties struggle for representation in the public sphere in reality. If anything that section underplays the imbalance.

The thumbs down was to be expected, and I for one am not disappointed. Most of us haven't the time to examine anything in depth.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That Mearsheimer and Walt are used as a source - when their piece of writing has been condemned as " Because of its extremism, however, we can hope that mainstream individuals and institutions will see it for what it is – a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control."ADL - is a cause for alarm in terms of sourcing. As for Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Israeli critical judgements I'm not sure if all the individuals/organizations there are Zionist (a rather archaic designation) - however I am fairly sure each and every one of them is on the political spectrum from Meretz (e.g. B'Tselem was for a long time run by Meretz's junior varsity (e.g. Zehava Gal-On back when she was a parlimantary assistance - well prior to becoming party chief)) and left of Meretz (Hadash and a few less notable radical groups) - which is very much on the left fringe of Israeli politics. Icewhiz (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't stand a chance of retaining your place as R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at Chicago University (John Mearsheimer) nor as tenured professor at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government (Stephen Walt)if you are anti-Semitic. Neither the ADL nor, I presume, yourself, are familiar with the book, the smear, like most smearing, is just yabbering hearsay. As to the rest of your comments, it's speculation on whom the several individuals named vote for, if indeed they vote at all. A large number of prominent Israeli intellectuals simply don't vote.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I know their histories. It's a bad commie tendency to think you can dispose of an argument or thinker or person by sticking him/her with a political label, rather than addressing the quality of the thinking. In two cases there, terrorists connected with settlers tried to kill these thinkers, not because of their party affiliations but because of what they wrote. Let's drop this. I accept that you no longer think they are all representatives of the 'fringe of the radical left' (which in anycase doesn't mean anything) Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to get dragged into an I/P content dispute, but a few points require rebuttal here.

By construction, a section titled "Israeli critical judgements" limits the scope of opinions that can be considered. This section begins by placing the cited opinions within "[a] tradition of Jewish opposition to Zionism" and goes on to quote one critic on the "'Nazification' of Israeli society." I do not need Icewhiz or anyone else on Wikipedia to tell me this is a fringe view among Israelis and hence not a good ingredient for an NPOV article.

References to Israel's security concerns are scattered throughout the article. Mostly, they either present critical takes on Israel's security concern generally (usually without naming the concerns themselves) or summarize Israeli justification of specific actions, e.g. with regards to olive groves or bar associations. The current state of things is not a substitute for a systematic treatment of the concerns that (it is claimed) drive the occupation, as multiple editors are saying would be required for the article to be NPOV. Critical responses would, of course, be a component of such a treatment.

Your penultimate paragraph appears to argue that (1) the majority of WP:reliable sources favor "the Israeli case", (2) but this is only because Israel exerts great control over the media, (3) so this article needs to favor the Palestinian perspective more than the balance of reliable sources does. Together, (1) and (3) run afoul of WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, components of WP:NPOV, and have a strong flavor of WP:POVFIGHTER. As to (2), Mearsheimer and Walt's book is highly disputed, and the overall sentiment evokes some old and very ugly tropes.

Far from helping your case that the article is NPOV, your response here only validates my concern that your approach to editing is unlikely to produce an NPOV article in the near future. Lagrange613 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not here to engaged in 'fights' of any kind, but to reason on why Wikipedia needs an article outlining a topic massively covered in high quality sources, but no where expounded in the clear detail the subject demands, namely the mechanisms of occupation. That it is an occupation is what all sources say, from the Israel High Court down: that an occupation has an infrastructure is self-evident. That nearly all I/P? articles spend undue time documenting the political pros and cons, via the sound bites of high profile actors in the area, is also true. The article cuts to the chase by telling the reader how this started, how it developed, and what mechanisms are used to maintain the occupation.

(a) Your premise is that any view not shared by 'most Israelis is, ipso facto fringe, is weird. I/P articles are jam-packed with political extremist statements by Israeli and Palestinian talking heads which only dubiously could be associated with some general outlook attributable to Israelis or Palestinians. That, to be notable, a view must shade into the mainstream view established by labile polling to warrant quotation is unsustainable. We do not quote views because they are mainstream, we quote views according to the prominence of 'opinion-makers' be it Netanyahu saying the Palestinians'spiritual father inspired Hitler's holocaust, or Yeshayahu Leibowitz saying the settler project will Nazify his society. Icewhiz complained at first that the people cited were 'fringe'. That failed verification, so now the views they espoused are fringe. Israeli political rhetoric is extremely strong on hyperbole, and mellow mainstream voices are a rare thing, which, if encountered (Yehuda Elkana comes to mind),are disliked.

(b) I've been waiting for about a month for someone to follow through with a neat summary paragraph on Israel's security concerns. Do I really have to write everything? I've offere suggestions, advised that it is very difficult to summarize (where do you put Yitzhak Shamir's argument, rebuffing the first implicit historic offer by Arab States to recognize Israel (1981/2) is exchange for establishing a Palestinian state along pre-1967 lines, that the idea of a Palestinian state constituted an existential threat to Israel?), a position reiterated through several united Arab peace initiatives from 2002, which were met with silence or similar readings that it was a threat to Israel's security?)

(c)your summary of my penultimate paragraph is, to me unrecognizable, because as Walt and Mearsheimer argue, 'Israel' does not control the media, and I do not deal here with the 'Palestinian perspective', whatever that is, but with what the scholarly, as opposed to the newspaper/ or official organ grinding POVs, evaluate. Mearsheimer and Walt's book's facts are not 'highly disputed'. What is notable is that there is a stark split between what the highest quality university presses print in their numerous monographs about the conflict and what newspaper reportage (far more subject to pressure) ladles out to the mainstream reading public. M and W's book is an extremely closely documented history of pressure at all levels exercised to gloss over the geostrategic problems the U.S. faces in succumbing to an official Israelocentric narrative which they regard as destabilizing. I think they are somewhat starry-eyed about U.S. policy, but that is neither here nor there. Unless one has actually read that, and a dozen other books analyzing the issue of representation, this rebuttal is just what you get in newspaper one column outbursts of general disagreement. They document facts, those who challenge them have yet to challenge the extremely detailed documentary record outlined in their book. If you think stating this is a case of WP:POVFIGHTER then I am amazed that you skate so comfortably over the numerous statements made here to the effect that anyone critical of an occupation is on the fringe of the radical left or just one of 'various lily faced humanities (or int. law scholars) scholars'. Tendentious editing is all over this place, and that is one reason why the article in question tries as best it can to set down the facts and mechanisms. Not one editor here has yet to deny that the facts and mechanisms outlined exist. Several editors just don't want that material listed, and they do so on the grounds that it is a violation of WP:NPOV to describe the reality of an occupation and its impact on the occupied. Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by this soup of strawmen and whataboutisms, but none of it seems to be about the fate of this DYK nomination. Unless you have more to add, I consider this conversation complete. Lagrange613 21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I always endeavor to reason, even in recalcitrant or obtuse cases. Call it 'strawmen and whataboutisms' if it makes you feel happier. All I see here, unfortunately, is a hardening attitude brandishing policy, not a grasp of the complexities, policy or otherwise, raised. I have no objections to this being closed, particularly since I never thought, being a realist, that it was a starter in the first place. Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with these DYK processes is the time limit. I had to choose to avoid debate on Template:Did you know nominations/Enclave law simply because of some entirely spurious claims. If I had chosen to engage, the DYK would have failed.

The only conclusion I can draw is that DYK for new articles or 5x expanded articles is not practical for contested topics. Contested topics must first go through the Good Article procedure (unfortunately that process has a c. 1 year backlog...) Onceinawhile (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sarlacc's Pit cave

... that the largest striped karst cave ever found has been nicknamed Sarlacc's Pit? Source: "The cave is the largest known of its type, a variety of "striped karst," which is marble interspersed with other types of ancient ocean rock, she said." and "The entrance to the cave, nicknamed 'Sarlacc's Pit' by the helicopter crew who discovered it, is seen in an undated handout photo." (both sentences from CBC article)

ALT1:... that no one will know until 2020 whether the newly discovered Sarlacc's Pit cave is actually the largest cave in Canada? Source: "The exact depth and size of the cave has not been determined... future exploration of the cave is being considered in consultation with BC Parks, and that a team is likely to be fielded in 2020. (from Canadian Geographic article) and "A newly discovered cave in a remote valley in British Columbia might be the country's largest." (from CBC article)

- Thanks for creating this nomination and your work on the article! Looking at it for DYK, there a number of things that have to be done in order for it to be ready to run on the main page. First, there are a few sections that are without any/adequate citations. Also, there are a few tags expressing concerns over the article's tone, general phrasing, among other things that need to be resolved. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like us to take a look at any changes. Thanks again, Mifter Public (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mifter Public. Thank you for the note. I was surprised to see your comment about unreferenced sections since I had put a reference on each sentence. But then even more surprised to see the article! People have added a TON of stuff to it since I nominated it. I am overwhelmed and not sure what to do or where to start. Some questions for you:

The article name was changed, does that make it ineligible for DYK now?

Do all the additions now make it ineligible, or is there anything that can be done? I do not want to erase anyone else's work, obviously, and I think it's cool so much has been added. But I have no idea where the other people got their information from. What would you suggest?

I think I could fix the tone tag through copyediting. But how would I fix the tag about a contributor with a conflict of interest? Whoever that contributor is, it is not me, and I suppose that tag has to stay there as long as they have contributed content to the article.

Here's what you need to do; comprehensively and heartlessly remove anything that can't be cited or smacks of POV. It's great that the original investigators are taking an interest, we welcome them here, but if the information has not yet been published in a reliable source then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (see discussion on article talk page). You can remove the maintenance templates yourself when the issues have been fixed. The article will not get past a DYK review while they are still in place, or the issues have not been fixed. This is not a full review, there is little point doing that while the article has major problems.

On the name change issue, that may need to be undone, although it probably doesn't affect DYK. Wikipedia article names should be the common name found in sources, regardless of any "official" name. In any case, as I understand it, the feature does not yet have an official name. You need to advise what your sources are calling it and then change the name accordingly (see Wikipedia:Requested moves). SpinningSpark 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Spinningspark. I am seeing first if the other contributor will work with me, if not I will carry on with your advice without them. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that the tag is still on the page, so far Chino Roque only links to one other article -- as part of a dubious and unreferenced paragraph. Still doesn't cut it for me. You have to resolve it yourself, I'm afraid. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

An additional comment: perhaps "if" would be better than "when", since it doesn't look like the flight is happening any time soon. Also, the hook fact must be explicitly present in the body, and not the lede alone. Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: the hook fact must be present and cited somewhere in the article. It does not have to appear both in the lead and the body. It could even be in a picture caption or footnote. Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problems with the proposed changes. Thank you for your review. Arius1998 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New enough at time of submission, long enough, no copyvio detected, hook(s) are interesting, but I prefer the original one, QPQ has been done -- good to go. Best, Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I promoted ALT0 to prep, but am returning it because the lead of the XCOR Lynx specifically states that the project has been halted. I wonder if Chino Roque even meets GNG now in light of WP:1E. Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Like sheep to the slaughter

... that a popular misconception holds that Jews went "like sheep to the slaughter" during the Holocaust? Source: Middleton-Kaplan 2014, p. 3.

ALT1:... that in Israel, Holocaust survivors were blamed for having gone "like sheep to the slaughter"? Source: Middleton-Kaplan 2014, p. 9.

ALT2:... that Jewish resistance leaders exhorted Jews not to go "like sheep to the slaughter" during the Holocaust, because "for three lines in history... it is even worth dying"? Source: Middleton-Kaplan 2014, p. 6–7.

Comment: The article's header image could be used, especially with ALT3.

Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 22:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts for ALT0 and ALT1 are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. I prefer ALT0 and ALT1 to the other hooks. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

With heavy heart I have to express serious doubts about the viability of this article. Its very opening is way off base: "Like sheep to the slaughter" (Hebrew: כצאן לטבח‎) is a phrase which refers to the idea that Jews went passively to their deaths during the Holocaust. No, "Like sheep to the slaughter" us a very old -- biblical, even -- phrase used in all kinds of contexts long before it was, indeed, used in the context of the Holocaust. At the very least it needs to be renamed something like Myth of Jewish passivity during the Holocaust or (less POVish) Popular perceptions of Jewish [something something]; and possibly it should be merged with Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe. But it certainly shouldn't be titled Like sheep to the slaughter, as if it's an article about that phrase in general. It also has a somewhat essay-like tone with a dollop of RIGHTGREATWRONGS. EEng 04:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: The first sentence in the article, which you are objecting to, was changed to its current version after helpful comments from Srnec on the talk page. Srnec pointed out that the Hebrew (כצאן לטבח) does not appear in the Bible (the similar Biblical phrase sometimes translated as "like sheep to the slaughter" is more commonly translated with different English phrases, which could be used in an article discussing religious usage). As for your suggestion that it be renamed something like "Perceptions of Jewish passivity during the Holocaust", I considered that but ultimately I do not think it would be workable. Given the heated disagreements between scholars about what "Jewish resistance" was, it seems difficult to believe that there is some accepted definition of what "Jewish passivity" was. So what would be the inclusion criteria? As for this phrase, its application in the Holocaust context is notable and has been widely criticized; the article reflects the sources in noting that. If there are any changes that I could make in order to make the article less "essay-like", please let me know. buidhe(formerly Catrìona) 08:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but the article isn't about a phrase, it's about a group of related readings of historical events, and maybe another group of contrasting readings, and the title needs to reflect what it's really about, difficult as that may be. The current title, plus the lead's assertion of a "myth" (it's not a complete myth, rather the truth was a complex mixture), set the tone of an essay-like endeavor. There are historical mischaracterizations that modern scholarship squarely labels myth, but this isn't one of them. I'd just like to see at least a better article title before this goes to the main page. EEng 15:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Buidhe, EEng, where does this stand now? It's been three weeks since the last post, and as far as I can tell this appears to be at an impasse. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Repeating that I raised this issue with great regret, but my objections (especially as summarized in my earlier post just above here) stand. At least the article needs a more accurate title, but I suspect that the attempt to find that new title will reveal underlying problems with focus and tone. EEng 17:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall: The article does not appear in the hook? Hook not adwquately cited. Also contradictory information (is it 2016 or 2017?) and some NPOV ("very heavy"). No QPQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, this editor is editing through a college course and has no prior DYK experience. In cases like this we generally try to help them as they are not only new to DYK but also to Wikipedia generally. Also, as they are new (with no prior DYKs), there is no QPQ requirement. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman, User:Gerda Arendt, Mifter Public, I'm working on this a bit to try and get it in shape for the front page. I've proposed an alternate hook and am making copyedits. Please bear with me; I obviously have a bit more work to do and appreciate y'all's comments here and whatever you can do in the article. GS, I will ping you again when I think the article is more ready than it is now. (I'll add that I didn't see the entirety of the article when the DYK nomination was made, and I would have held back on it, but it is what it is, and I'm sure we can make it work.) Thanks again, Dr Aaij (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

New reviewer needed to check the two ALT hooks, and whether there has been sufficient copyediting or the article still needs more work to be suitable for the main page. There's been no response in over three weeks; at this point, given the age of the nomination, we need to move forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

One of your, perchance...? I don't think we'll be seeing them again; I assume they got their grade some weeks ago :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Shalor (Wiki Ed), User:Serial Number 54129, BlueMoonset, sorry I'm late to this party--Dumelow's hook is fine with me. I'm about to have a look at the article. Yes, I know at the time it needed a lot of work--in fact, I didn't want the student to submit it for DYK... Dr Aaij (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 17:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC).

It's fine--just squeaks by in terms of length (after removal of a trivial mention). Sources are fine, no plagiarism--but we're awaiting a QPQ. Chetsford, drop me a line when you got that taken care of. BTW, when was the first one placed in a refrigerator? I'm sure whatever was produced in 1835 wasn't in a machine like today's. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Plus, I wonder if we shouldn't add "humidity" to the hook; if so many people don't know how it works, then maybe they don't know that either. I wouldn't be surprised if you got a million hits with that. Dr Aaij (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I know how it works (I have a Tupperware crisper), so I don't understand what's hooky here. X = Y is rarely hooky, BTW. Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Because they're uncommon in most countries, or they're not actually called a "crisper" by most people: in the UK it doesn't have a name, but people do know that the bottom of a fridge is good for parsnips, so it could get quite a few hits with people not from the US going "oh, that's what it's called". This is one of the 'obvious' hooks that isn't obvious for many readers. Kingsif (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I apologize I haven't done the QPQ on this yet. I thought it might be good to take a photo of a crisper to include in the article so I just need to do that (but not my own because it's full). Chetsford (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC).

Date, length and neutrality verified. No copyright violations detected and QPQ has been met. The source supports the hook, also it does not mention the decree as being commonly named the Bierut Decree, however, this source from the article does. The hook is interesting enough but could possibly be improved by somehow stating that Warsaw had almost completely been destroyed by the Nazis and the degree was actually a vital step in rebuilding the city. Not sure how you would get that all in the hook within the allowed 200 characters length. Turismond (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What about this alternative hook? Turismond (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

ALT1:... that the 1945 Bierut Decree, nationalising all immovable property in the Polish capital of Warsaw, was a vital step in rebuilding the city after its destruction by the Nazis?

@Turismond: I am unsure if all sources would agree on this being 'vital'. Some, yes, but I have scanned a bunch of Polish sources and I am not sure if this would be an uncontroversial claim. So for neutrality reasons, I'd suggest rephrasing into ALT2 below (which also links to the interesting destruction of Warsaw article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes Piotrus, I wasn't quite sure about the word "vital" either and thought about using "important" instead. In any case, I think your Alt2 is quite good and fine with me, too. Turismond (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Oppose' - "facilitated", "important" etc., are judgement calls from the Communist point of view. E.g., Dresden was rebuild without this shtick. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

oppose the nomination I am surprized how such a venerable wikipedian as Piotrus has written such a sloppy text. It looks like the Piutrus did not read the decree itself. the descree specifically says that the decree nationalized only land, the immovable properties remained in old ownership unless specifically decided otherwise. There are many other blunders and omissions. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh puhlease, wikilawyering, from Piotrus?? I am interpreting into the article nothing and not suggesting you do the same. Just quote it. If secondary sources contradict original, find better sources. Sources make errors as well, you know. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

But it is not our job to call them errors - so our job is to spread misinformation, then? We are not calling them errors in the article. We just do not cite them. There is plenty of error in historical texts. Our job is to exercise editorial judgement. I may understand where sources come from. They just sloppily summarized what had happened. Although the decree did not nationalize the properties directly, the communists simply did not give permits for previous owners to rebuild. And the question of ownership of destroyed buildings was moot: rubble removed, new property built by the state. I've seen some sources about that. I will try to update the article when I have time ... next year :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand that the nationalisation of property in Poland by the communists is a contentious issue but this is probably beyond this DYK nomination to discuss. Having absolutely no knowledge on the decree and being unable to understand Polish I can only go by the provided source which states that the decree nationalised all imovable property and that it alllowed for the rebuilding of the city. The comparison with Dresden, in my opinion, fails to account for the fact the Warsaw lost two thirds of its population during the war while Dresden lost only a quarter, something that would have made quite a difference in the rebuilding. I'm happy with the hook based on the provided source but, as an alternative, is it possible to have this looked at by another Polish-speaking editor who can read and understand the decree? Turismond (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking for a Polish-speaking/reading editor to check the decree per the discussion above and render an opinion on this DYK nomination and the suitability of the hook. Thanks. Staszek Lem, are you still intending to make updates based on those sources you've seen? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I am very sorry, I did not expect that December DYK will dangle until February. I will try do do something quickly, but not much. I do have little time for wikipedia now, doing mostly rv and cleanup of whatever pops up in the watchlist. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I did some writeup. Please tell me which parts of the decree you want to see in exact wording. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: One issue here is that the article itself feels incomplete. It states that nationalization in Poland has led to controversies, but doesn't actually go into detail as to what these were. This is a major red flag and by itself makes the article unsuitable for DYK in its current state. Perhaps once this is done we'll have more possible hook suggestions? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes the DYK rules do not require incomplete articles, merely that unfinished articles are discouraged (to be fair, the line between the two can be blurry). However, I am quoting from the supplementary guidelines: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive. (emphasis mine). It does not need to be a blow-by-blow account on what these controversies are, but at the very least, a brief summary would be nice. If you will be unable to address this issue, and taking to account that neither proposed hook thus far is of interest to a broad audience and there doesn't seem to be anything else in the article that's "hooky", I am afraid I may have to mark this for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, I've written 1000+ DYKs. I know very well what is sufficient for a DYK, and this article is. You find it boring? Tough. Someone else will pass it because it meets the DYK criteria, and there are no grounds for disqualifying it. To be clear: the 'controversies' section is a related topic but not the main topic. One day I may write a dedicated article about it (pl wiki has one already and I've added a link, plus a bit more content). As far as nationalization itself, even without the controversies section, this is an adequate summary and thus DYKable. So may I kindly ask you to stop making trouble invoking a weird 'I don't like it' interpretation that I've never heard from anyone in my ~10 years of DYKing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on the above comments: i.e. the refusal of the nominator to expand on an incomplete article, coupled with two hooks that are now rejected, I am now marking this for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your closure. I ask for another review and I ask that you never review any of my DYKs since you use some strange interpretations. Please keep your disruptive activities away from my contributions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I fail to understand what is wrong with my request. I'm not trying to derail the nomination; on the contrary, when I mentioned the request for expansion, I was trying to help. It was you who brought up that the hook suggestions were potentially boring, and I was not even the first to mention that this is indeed the case, it was Daniel Case. Secondly, my main request was simply a request to expand the last section of the article, specifically the part which goes but some of its rulings have led to further controversies and several trials. That part ended very abruptly, with no mention of exactly what these controversies are. It didn't even need to be its own section, paragraph, or article: a single sentence could have done the job. I was simply requesting that additional information about these controversies be added to the article, and honestly I'm surprised at the reaction I've gotten in this nomination. I was hoping that perhaps if some more information could be added to the article, then new possible hook suggestions could be proposed, since the ones that have been formulated thus far aren't very good. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 14:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I might have overreacted a little, through I still think the article is meets DYK criteria. Some topics do not lend themselves to great hooks, and it is not like your or anyone else has proposed a better one. The reprivatisation section is a side of the main topic here, and I don't think the hook should focus on it since it is a separate and independently notable issue that is only partially related to the topic in question, i.e. nationalization in Poland. I have already added a few sentences to the article, including to that section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have been requested to offer a reading on this article, and in fairness I am Piotrus's friend. The argument that the material or introduction is "boring" is a silly one which should be rejected outright; Wikipedia is not YouTube or an entertainment site, and article introductions should provide succinct summaries or definitions; it is Taylor Swift songs that require "hooks," not a reference or encyclopedic tool. I do agree that this article could use more content and specifics. My advice, and it is only my advice, is that the article remain DYK provisionally for now with the understanding that it will be improved with expansion, and any decision on it be delayed until Piotrus or the community can revise. Keneckert (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Dr. Ken Eckert

@Keneckert: I think that when you headline a section on the Main Page "Did you know ..." the reader is set up to expect a surprising or interesting fact that would make them want to click the link. Articles themselves, I agree, do not require hooks; they are what they are and sometimes no amount of research will produce something that might elicit a raised eyebrow from a reader.

However, DYK is a different story, WP:DYKHOOK, part of the DYK rules section, explicitly asks nominators "When you write the hook, please make it 'hooky', that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." It should be beyond argument that a hook stating that a lot of problems have resulted from reprivatizing previously nationalized assets is not likely to accomplish the latter; indeed, it would be noteworthy if those problems hadn't occurred. Piotrus clearly understands this in his nomination when he admits that 1A is boring. We also pretty much lampshaded this a while back ourselves with the hook "... that The Rolling Stones are a British rock band? Okay, you probably did ..." (But that one will only work once, and that was a rather extraordinary subject). Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I expanded the part regarding controversies, so that now IMO it makes sense in general. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Alt 3. I would say this is a questionable statement. It looks like the authors cited do not see the difference between nationalization and collectivization. In the Soviet Union sovkhozes were 45%. And 30% vs 45% is meaningless pissing contest. I quickly looked up and see that In DDR state-owned agriculture Volkseigenes Gut had far less share anyway. We can discus this in article talk page, but right now I see the statement as dubious. Staszek Lem (talk)

Cinema of Venezuela

... that the first Venezuelan film was an 1897 short (frame pictured) showing a dentist pulling teeth? Source: "we know thanks to documental research that the name of these first films were Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa" (The Beginnings of Cinema in Venezuela)

ALT1:... that the public response to the introduction of cinema to Venezuela was "cold" and "indifferent"? what could have been expected, the reception given to cinema could be said to have been cold and characterized by a kind of indifferent curiosity" (The Beginnings of Cinema in Venezuela)

The full review will be to follow, but for now I believe the article might need some copyediting due to improper capitalizations in certain places (for example "first Cinematography Law"). In addition, several statements such as "Equally famous is the 1977 film El Pez que Fuma (Román Chalbaud).", "The 2013 horror film La Casa del Fin de los Tiempos became such a success that its director was hired in 2016 to shoot an American remake." lack citations. Of the two hooks, the first hook is probably the best option, but I'd rather it not go with the image since it's rather dark and doesn't actually depict the dentist pulling teeth (if an image of that could be found, then that might work better). I understand that some editors are not exactly fond of "first" hooks, so I will not object if ALT1 or another hook is promoted in its stead. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: The issues brought up in the above comment have been handled; not improper capitalisation, since its a proper noun (the name of the Cinematography Law wasn't very inventive), and citations have been added. Problem with the image is that it's the only surviving part of the film, as far as anyone knows. I don't mind which hook is used, or if there's others. If I can find the ref for it, perhaps say that the film industry in Venezuela routinely makes a loss? Kingsif (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that the Venezuelan film industry regularly makes a national loss, due to lack of interest and general financial mismanagement?

The article does appear to meet the 5x expansion requirement, which was met before nomination. For the most part the article is sourced; Spanish-language references are accepted in good faith. Of the hooks proposed, the original hook and ALT 2 are the only ones to be approved; the hook to be promoted will be left to the promoter. Both are cited inline, interesting, and verified. Earwigs has a relatively high score and detects some possible close paraphrasing with this source. In addition, the article still needs a full copyedit, as there are still typos and improperly-parsed symbols (for example: "we can point to specific"). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look over sources and the funny symbols... next year Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I've looked at the copyvio report, it shows that the overlap is mostly film names, with three quotations. It's rather unavoidable to not mention the same film names, unfortunately. I think I've removed all the funny symbols - looking at where they were, it'll be a funny accent key when I was editing that section. Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted. I'd still recommend a full copy edit to make the article flow better. I'd also suggest either linking to Bolivares or giving an approximate exchange rate at the time of the publication of the source (obviously not the current exchange rate). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: It's been a week now, have you been able to do your copyedit? I just took a look at the article and while the article looks better, there's still room for improvement wording-wise. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I gave it some, but I was largely preoccupied trying to keep several other pages clean! I'm a bit exhausted at the moment, I'll try to get to it soon. Kingsif (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted. As this nomination has been on for so long,@Kingsif: I'll give you two weeks to resolve all issues. If they are not resolved by then, this nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Date and length fine. I had initial concerns about the hook but am happy with how it is in the article. I do note there are some citation tags in the article @GWA88: which will need to be sorted before I can continue with the review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Why should it be classed as terrorism? Quite obviously, it isn't. And, the whole thing is looking more and more like a hoax. Not a good item for DYK. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing with the review as above. I am going to pass the hook but I do feel it may be better to say "was not" rather than "is not" @DannyS712: as it was what the incident was deemed as at the time, plus maybe include Gatwick in the hook. But these are minor issues and my review will still stand if they are added. QPQ not needed as per QPQcheck. No close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Do you have a reliable source for your claim that it is not "cookery"? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion it's poorly-worded and invites a reader to think that it may be considered terrorism elsewhere and that there is something wrong with the people of West Sussex, along the lines of (the many Australian jokes to the effect that) "in Tasmania, it is considered acceptable to have sex with members of your family". I like Andy Mabbett's suggestion above, and edited it a bit for grammar. YSSYguy (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@YSSYguy and Pigsonthewing: A few things. First, Pigsonthewing, I want to apologize for my comment above. I meant it as a joke, but I don't think that was easy to tell without the inflection of verbal communication, so I'm sorry. Second, on further thought, and based on YSSYguy's explanation, I agree that the current hooks may not be in the best of tastes, so I'd like to propose my own alternative below. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: If we change it to "led", as YSSYguy suggests, then we don't need RS that it is still the case, but only that it was, which is evident in the article --DannyS712 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, neither the 1,000 number nor the 150,000 number has an inline source citation in the article as required per DYK rules nor do they appear in the body of the article; indeed, the 150,000 number is currently given varyingly as "about 140,000" in the lede and "140,000+" in the infobox. These will need to be addressed in the article; once they have been, then perhaps ALT5 below will suit:

Tanya Saracho

ALT7:... that, for Vida, Tanya Saracho assembled an all-Latinx, "heavily queer" writers' room and a directorial team who are all Latinx or women of color ...? (150) Source: "She wanted an all-Latinx writers room — so, she made it happen. She wanted the writers to be heavily queer — so, she made it happen (50% of the writers identify as LGBTQ+). She wanted every director on the show to be either a woman of color or Latinx — so, she made it happen." [7]

Struck hooks

... that Tanya Saracho, creator of Starz TV show Vida co-founded Chicago's Teatro Luna, an all-Latina theatre ensemble? (120 characters) Source: "Tanya’s work has been seen at ... and Teatro Luna the Latina theatre company she founded and was artistic director of for ten years." [8][9]

ALT1:... that Tanya Saracho and Raúl Castillo were childhood friends before she wrote his storylines in Looking ...? (108) Source: "Raul Castillo was my first high school boyfriend," Saracho said. "We went to high school and college together (at Boston University). He's like a sibling. I've known him 22 years and almost every male character that I write is a version of Raul." [10]

ALT2:... that Tanya Saracho, creator of Starz TV show Vida, and actor Raúl Castillo were childhood friends and all her male characters are adapted versions of him ...? (159) Source: "Raul Castillo was my first high school boyfriend," Saracho said. "We went to high school and college together (at Boston University). He's like a sibling. I've known him 22 years and almost every male character that I write is a version of Raul." [11]

ALT3:... that Tanya Saracho, creator of Starz TV show Vida, adapted Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard into El Nogalar, set in Northern Mexico ...? (133) Sources: "Set amid the explosive drug wars in present-day Northern Mexico, El Nogalar was a modern retelling of Anton Checkov’s The Cherry Orchard, a classic with a Spanglish spin." [12]; "Chekhov is what led me to write in the north of Mexico. Chekhov is not "South Texas" to me." [13]

ALT4:... that Tanya Saracho, creator of Starz TV show Vida, wrote a play inspired by transgenderAmerican Civil War soldier Albert Cashier ...? (135) Sources: "she is writing The Good Private, a piece about Albert Cashier — a U.S. Civil War soldier who was born in Ireland as Jennie Hodgers" [14]; "Saracho is currently working on ... a historical fiction piece about a transgendered Civil War soldier titled The Good Private for About Face Theatre." [15]

ALT5:... that Tanya Saracho, creator of Starz TV show Vida, focuses her work on providing representation for the Latinagaze and redressing stereotypes ...? (149) Source: ""You know how Jill Soloway is talking about the female gaze? I'm interested in the Latina gaze for the foreseeable future." [16]

ALT6:... that, in her first TV job, VidashowrunnerTanya Saracho was told directly that she was "the diversity writer" and didn't cost the showrunner anything to hire ...? (164) Source: "Within the "first hour" of being a TV writer, her office mate "turns to me and he goes, 'You know you're the diversity writer, right?'" Later, she says, her agent both confirmed it and made it worse by explaining that it means she's free; she doesn't cost the showrunner any money." [17]

ALT8:... that Tanya Saracho's work, including her Starz TV show Vida, is generally in Spanglish, with characters mixingEnglish and Spanish ...? (136) Source: "AS: Let’s talk about the language on the show, especially the Mexican-American slang. .... // TS: That wasn’t hard, that was like me writing plays. My plays are how I speak Spanglish" [18]

ALT9:... that Tanya Saracho felt it important to include queerLatinx characters, played by queer Latinx actors, in her Starz TV show Vida ...? (135) Source: "And we didn’t explain — like, I didn’t say one of them is trans, one of them is genderqueer. They just exist, and that was really important, to have that and also to cast it with actual queer actors." [19]

ALT12:... that when her show Vida was greenlit, Starz sent Tanya Saracho a hamper of Outlander items because she is a big fan of the show ...? (133) Source: "When Vida got the green light, Starz sent me this picnic basket of Jamie Fraser red wine and all these Outlander things that I'll never open because it's like my sacred thing." [23]

I am not going to consider any of the other hooks. I think you scared away potential reviewers by adding this many hooks. Article is new enough and long enough. Article and hook is sourced sourced. No neutrality or copyright problem detected. QPQ done. Good to go. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: Thank you so much; I can completely see what you mean about scaring away potential reviewers.

Having chatted with a friend, could I ask you please to consider ALT7 instead of the original hook? From the things Saracho has said about Latina gaze and the importance of queer representation, I think ALT7 is probably the best hook to emphasise that.

Sorry again for the surfeit of hooks; I don't feel that I'm all that great at determining what's actually the most interesting, so I was hoping that some friends would help me review those before a reviewer came along to approve the DYKnom. I've struck through most of the other alternates. — OwenBlacker(talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but I see 4 open hooks, not one. @KAVEBEAR: what exactly did you approve? BTW, ALT7 seems fine to me, although I don't understand what "Latinx" is. Does it have a link? Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Approving ALT7 or original hook. Creator prefers ALT7. I don’t have preference. Latinx is gender neutral term for Latina or Latino. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. @OwenBlacker:, as I'm looking over the article before promotion, I notice that the lead is littered with cites for non-controversial information. (Why is there a cite after her name? If there needs to be one it should go with her full name in the first sentence under "Early life".) In the lead you say she founded Teatro Luno in 2001, and in the body text you say it was in 2000. I'd appreciate your moving the cites out of the lead and making sure the information in the body follows the sources before I proceed. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Done — and a good catch on the contradictory foundation dates; I've corrected the references to "June 2000", as mentioned on their own site and in a handful of other refs. Thank you! — OwenBlacker(talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried to go through most of the article, though it was difficult as your sentences are overlong and packed with information through the use of em-dashes. This would really benefit from a copy-edit. I added a "citation needed" tag where you quote something and don't give the citation for it. My opinion on the hooks is that ALT7 is all right, but I would click on something much shorter and snappier using the term "the Latina gaze". Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Fair enough. It's a little late here for me to give it a better look tonight, but I should be able to do so at the weekend, if not sooner. I'll ping you again here once I have done. Thanks again! — OwenBlacker(talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've done some copyediting and improved some references. I think I need to give it another pass of copyedits, though. I'm away this week, but I'll give it another once-over once I'm back and I'll think about the hook some more too — OwenBlacker(talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT2:... that ...during crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir tear gas shells are used, but experienced protestors often throw the shells back or cover them with wet gunny sacks? (pictured:image 2)Source: "People have learned protective tricks like the use of wet cloth to counter it. Experienced rioters do not take it seriously. The shells are either smothered with a wet gunny bag or thrown back at the police," the report concludes" india Today

Comment: image is entirely optional, only text DYK or text+Image DYK can also be considered. ALT2 if approved would need a different image 2

Overall: Everything looks great. Can you pick a hook and image should I can approve it? All hooks should work, and both images do as well. DannyS712 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712 test, thanks a lot for your kind comment and review. we did a quick poll among ourselves, we feel that ALT0 is the best among the three along with pic 1, please proceed with ALT0. DBigXrayᗙ 04:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Put this on hold, please. Unless I manage to read the entirety and (possibly) get over my initial feelings of slapping a POV tag. If you see no editorial efforts of mine within the next 48 hrs. at the article, feel free to proceed. ∯WBGconverse 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:--This's is a blatant POV piece; manifested as an highly effective praise of the Indian machinery. The author has been careful in weeding out any source (of which there is an abundance) that criticizes the methods.

That I'm not involved with the article/ broader area in any editorial manner (and nether with the author in any manner), I don't see any reason to not perform a second-review.

Hi User:Winged Blades of Godric thanks for sharing your opinion on the article. The article authored by DiplomatTesterMan as it stands right now covers all aspect of the crowd control in J&K and covers the victims from both sides. This article has recently been created so it does "not" need to pass a GA criteria for being able to pass the DYK nomination stage. That said there is always some room for improvement everywhere, even in a GA/ FA article. So lets contribute collaboratively. If you can elaborate your specific problems with the article on the article talk page and your suggestions on how it can be addressed we all can see what more can be done to improve this article. regardsDBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 it would be very helpful for the article if after your review you can also share (here or on article talk) your suggestions to improve if you find any "major" issues. regards DBigXrayᗙ 16:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: The article mentions in the lead the number of protestors killed in 2018 - "51 rioters being killed during clashes and 37 rioters being killed during encounters". The article mentions how over 100 protestors were killed in police firing in 2010. The article mentions how "thousands of people in Jammu and Kashmir have suffered pellet wounds, hundreds have eye-injuries, and at least 14 people have died due to their pellet injuries." The article also talks about "One of the youngest pellet guns victims is a 19 month old child, Heeba Jan, who suffered injuries in 2018. Another young person to suffer from pellet injuries is Insha Malik (Insha Ahmed), who was left blind as a result of her injuries." The article also mentions pellet guns are criticised. The article also mentions how tear gas shells have killed people. It also says how curfews have been held for long periods... Winged Blades of Godric is inaccurate according to me in saying that this is NPOV. I would request someone else to go through it, or even better..... expand it so the NPOV is sorted and we can get over with this, rather than say that this is a highly effective praise of the Indian machinery which should be meaningless here... I also think Winged Blades of Godric is throwing his own highly effective propaganda around if they can't help improve the article despite clearly knowing its faults and saying they are uninvolved despite "trying" to touch it up.

@DannyS712: Even after this if you think it is NPOV should I create an entirely new section in the article called "Criticism" and stuff it with criticism of the methods of India dating all the way back to 1947, about the horrendousness of Indian crowd control methods and how severely inhumane and barbaric they are... that is according to the sources Winged Blades is probably talking about? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Without an explanation from WBG about what specifically they object to, and given that, having re-read this, I believe it to be NPOV, this review is still a pass from me. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The page itself is misleading by its name. There is no mention of neutral sources like local newspapers, UNHRC or any representative report of other countries. The page should be renamed as Kashmir Uprising and content included from those hundreds of neutral sources out there and can anyone explain how can be a 19 month old child as a rioter? MehrajMir (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mehrajmir13: in that case, I'm going to recuse myself from this DYK, and ask for another reviewer: --DannyS712 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Mehrajmir13 I note that you are having an ongoing content dispute with me at [31] another article and you have followed me here. Per WP:BATTLE you should not really be using these DYK nominations as battle grounds to attack editors you are having content disputes with. The language used in your comment clearly shows that you are at an impasse.

There is nothing misleading about the article title, it has a specific scope and the article covers its scope quite well.

Your suggestion to rename this as "Kashmir Uprising" is entirely frivolous because that article on that topic already exists at 2016–17 Kashmir unrest.

After your comment I have included the UNCHR report from a local Kashmiri newspaper. I note that the article already includes criticism from notable organisations such as Amnesty International. DBigXrayᗙ 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Mehrajmir13, that is unfortunately not a productive comment. You very well know that Crowd control in Kashmir and Kashmir uprising can never be the same article. If you would like an article on the latter, you are free to create one. As far as this article is concerned, if you are able to make any suggestions for improvements, either before or after DYK, I am sure DBigXray will take them on board and I will be happy to help to the extent I can. The current sources include the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC and Reuters. They are from "third countries" as far as I am aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that the renaming that is suggested in the link above will occur and I have commented the same on the talk page WP:BOLD. The other points raised related to the sources cited can be addressed accordingly, and do not have anything to with this DYK as far as I can tell now since Winged Blades doubts have also been addressed as far as I can tell since there in no reply from his side here above. I request this DYK to continue for now unless no one has any other page rename suggestions, and inclusion of sources which haven't been used, can carry on. Again I repeat, as far as the DYK issue is concerned, I think it can proceed as normal. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to be "WP:BOLD" to reply on talk page. Fact that you are completely misunderstanding the concerns and throwing a bunch of personal attacks as per your talk page comments,[32] it only means that that the issue has not resolved. A simple concern, that you are still not understanding, is that this is not a normal crowd but protesters, and this issue doesn't concerns entire Jammu and Kashmir but only Kashmir Valley. The problem is not just with the title but article itself. MehrajMir (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mehrajmir13 you are acting naive now. Crowd control is the standard phrase used internationally, if you arent aware of the standard terms then knowledge is just a quick google search away, ("crowd control"+"kashmir") which turns up a large number of reliable sources that are using this term.

DiplomatTesterMan (You do not have to respond to Mehrajmir) let's wait for a neutral DYK reviewer to come along and review this, as I already noted above, Mehrajmir13 has followed my contributions to reach this DYK and to continue his content dispute with me. The points he has raised are clearly frivolous WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of stalling tactics. DBigXrayᗙ 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I watched this DYK since it is concerns one of the area where I frequently contribute and I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you.

Oh Congratulations to you, that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. You have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that you have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this.

The comments by Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article) have already been replied to both here and on the talk page. WBG has also warned him against this behavior [35]. The consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article, there is absolutely no consensus for any kind of merge or rename. DBigXrayᗙ 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I note here, that I will wait for comments from a new DYK reviewer, so that this DYK page does not become another WP:BATTLEGROUND.DBigXrayᗙ 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cited: N - I'm probably just blind, but I don't see where the article explicitly supports the material in the DYK hook and cites a source supporting it

Interesting: Y

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I find the article very interesting and comprehensive; I can tell the creator worked very hard on it and that is much appreciated! However, I'm afraid this will require work before it can be eligible. I'd suggest first making sure all material is supported by a reliable sources and then requesting a copy-edit. I haven't fully reviewed for neutrality yet but will soon. Best of wishes, SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: can you take a look at this? I'm not any where to as knowledgeable about this page as you are... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: All material can be supported by sources, but I was of the impression that citing the same page over and over again is just bad style. I could go through the work of citing every paragraph? Ted52 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ted52. Since you're using an inline citation style, then the general rule is that there should be a cite for at least every paragraph, and if a paragraph has material from multiple citations you may sometimes want to distribute multiple refs within that paragraph. Using a cite multiple times it's not a problem; it's certainly better than having unsourced material. The following sections in particular need to be sourced better:

Wizna and Brest-Litovsk (6–16 September 1939)

The "German-Soviet Parade" and the Conclusion of the Campaign (17 September - 6 October 1939)

Template:Reply to:SkyGazer 512Very well, will do. Is there a way I can template one reference and use it for the next? Reentering the same book's info over and over again is cumbersome, but I also don't want to do the thing where it's like "p. 100 - 200", because that's silly. I would like to preferably use the same reference over and over again for like 60% of the passages you inquire about, but with a slightly different page notation each time. The reason why most of the paragraphs aren't cited is exactly that 'cumbersome' functionality of having to build the reference from scratch everytime. Ted52 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ted52: Well, I suppose you could convert to using {{sfn}} refs. Basically how that works is you have two reference sections; one of them has a list of sources and the other usually just contains {{reflist}}. For the list of sources section, you include |ref=harv at the end of each citation template. Then, whenever you want to use a reference in the article, use the coding {{sfn|Author's last name|Year the author wrote it|pp=Page number range (or p=single page number)}}, and make sure that in the list of sources section each ref has a last= parameter and either a year= or date= parameter. If you do everything correctly, when you click on a sfn ref used in the article, it will be abbreviated and take you to the ref section with the reflist; then if you click on the highlighted ref there, it will take you to that ref's entry in the list of full sources, which only need to be listed once. It sounds confusing, yes, but once you get used to it it's not as bad as it seems. The documentation page for the template gives a lot more details. I can give you some examples if you'd like and I could help you convert the refs for this one. It's often a good idea to use it when there are book citations which you use a large number of pages from. Another technique sometimes used is having sfn for some sources and the other "main" ref style for others, such as using sfn for only books.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

An example of a page using sfn for only the book refs is Chinese alligator (e.g., the abbreviated Reading & Miller 2000, p. 72. in the reflist which links to the full ref in the sources subsection: Reading, Richard P.; Miller, Brian (2000). Endangered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN978-0313308161. Retrieved December 9, 2018.). Molly Morgan is an example of a page which uses sfn for all references except one. If you have any further questions, please let me know; this can seem quite confusing. I highly recommend that you read the documentation page for the sfn template if you might want to use this style.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘G'day all, I just noticed this on the Milhist alert list. I thought I'd give you a heads-up that Guderian was the commanding general of this formation at the time, and we need to be careful about accepting what he says as gospel, given he is probably too close to the subject. It would be much better if this hook was cited to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. As a general observation, the article relies far too heavily on Guderian's writings, needs more independent reliable sources, and we need to be wary of the clean Wehrmacht trope associated with many Wehrmacht generals trying to whitewash their activities during the war. Also, the article should be at XIX Army Corps (Wehrmacht) IAW pre-emptive disambiguation arrangements for military formations per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512:@Peacemaker67: I think I have been quite careful in pointing out the rather obvious flaws with Guderian's writings in terms of the war crimes committed by the German units during the operation, and used them strictly for the purpose of the unit's military movement. Yes, there are authors I could cite - Piekalkiewicz, Mazouwer, Shirer, Frieser, Kershaw, Bishop and others have all at least tangentially written about XIX Army Corps, especially as it was so central to the operational success of the whole campaign. But - and this a big but -, they all go back to Guderian's writings as their source for any troop movements they describe. You'll reliably find his books in their bibliographies, and, if inline citations are used, they either reference him or often earlier authors that also referenced him. You're not going to find precise primary source information about what battle lines the units were to take on Guderian's orders or what crossroads they were to advance to or what towns were or weren't captured in a single day outside of Guderian, who got to use his personal notes for the information at hand. I tried desperately to staff up any information that could be double checked, but even good old Percy Schramm couldn't help me, as his war diaries don't start before August of 1940. So, if it's okay to just phantom cite Guderian through other authors, I guess I can try and do that, but that's hardly intellectually honest. Ted52 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Pentagramma mirificum

Created by MCiura (talk). Self-nominated at 08:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC).

Good work on the article! No WP:QPQ needed because this is MCiura's first DYK nomination. Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but there are no citations in the whole "Geometric properties" section or the first paragraph under "Gnomonic projection", per Rule D2. The hook is also vague rather than hooky. If this doesn't make an image slot, it won't be apparent what you're talking about. Even then, it's not clear what this is or who Gauss is. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: The nominator hasn't edited in almost a month, and has been unable to respond to your comment. I took a look at the article to see if I could suggest a new hook. The only suggestion I can think of would be a variation of the lede (something like "that the Pentagramma mirificum is a star polygon on a sphere, composed of five great circle arcs, whose all internal angles are right angles?"). Could that work as a hook? Because otherwise, there doesn't seem to be anything else that could be used here, meaning that the only other option would be to close this as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 07:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: thank you for looking at this. But I don't think your alt will appeal to a wide audience. There's also the matter of all the unsourced paragraphs. In the absence of the nominator, I'm marking this for closure as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: What about "...that the Pentagramma mirificum(pictured) is a star polygon on a sphere?" As someone who isn't very interested in mathematics, I kind of find the star polygon interesting (I knew the shape but I didn't know it was called a star polygon as it was always called as simply a star when I was in school). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC).

Mhhossein This hook is not neutral, it's clearly pushing a POV. Please suggest another hook. And a QPQ is also required. (Another user can do full review but I'm just mentioning the clear issues) Joseph2302 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:Thanks for reviewing the hook. But can you say what kind of POV do you mean? Are you saying there's the possibility that, despite the wide comments on the footage by Israeli and non-Israeli sources, the area had been violent when the shooting was done? --Mhhosseintalk 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I will agree with User:Joseph2302's comment that this DYK is not neutral. The short 50 seconds video doesn't show if there was any violence before the video started rolling. Haaretz does not claim that the area was calm. YNET states that area "appears" to be calm. As I see IDF has called for an investigation. The DYK as it stands right now takes a strong position on the event, even though the investigations are ongoing. Wikipedia cannot be expected to take a stand on this while the investigations are ongoing. I would suggest you to propose few other neutral ALTs for this DYK to proceed, regards. DBigXrayᗙ 01:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The video is not 50 seconds, rather it's almost 41 minutes. Moreover, we're not here to analyze the videos rather we should adhere to what the reliable sources say. The contradictory claim by the IDF is mentioned by multiple RSs and the hook is just reflecting what the sources say. I don't think IDF claim can be priored over what multiple reliable sources say. That said, I've altered the hook and added "appeared". --Mhhosseintalk 13:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT1:... that unlike what the IDF said, the area appears calm in an obtained video of Mohammad Habali's death, when he was shot dead by an Israeli soldier?

@Mhhossein: If you are unable to suggest a new, neutral hook by the end of this week, and/or are unable to provide a QPQ, this nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I think many people will not know what IDF stands for, let alone what the IDF said. Readers will not know the importance or implications in the death. The wording infers that an entity is guilty, which is the POV issue. The subject is far too bland, and not hooky. I'm willing to do a full review, but new hooks are needed. Flibirigit (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Flibirigit: Thanks for the comment and for the review offer. You're welcomed to see if the nominations qualifies for the main page. As for the hook, I tried to abide by the reliable sources which say the area "appeared" to be calm, despite what the IDF said, when the shooting was done. Do you think there's anything I've missed? Do you have suggestions for hook? --Mhhosseintalk 05:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest looking at Death of Sammy Yatim, and see how that article elaborates on the community impact and reactions. The way people react to the death is what will make this event relatable to readers, and hook them into reading the article. I think the best way to move forward is to try expanding the article first. Flibirigit (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You can see my previous creation which is far more similar to this one. Thanks for your suggestion and I made some edits, but, having searched through the net and having re-checked the already used sources, there were no more materials available in the sources regarding the "community impact and reactions". That said, I'm ready to add materials if you can show any in the sources. Also, you did not comment on why reflecting what multiple sources said could amount to POV? Thanks. --Mhhosseintalk 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The article still needs more context before I will do a full review. It needs to explain why this specific killing stands out. For example, were there protests or outrage because the deceased had a mental condition? Was there any change in the status quo because of the killing? When you are able to expand the reactions or results, I will review then. Anyone else is welcome to review too. I also did not bring up anything on POV for multiple sources. I said only the proposed hook had POV concerns. I will entertain a new hook once more context is added to the article. Flibirigit (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Flibirigit: More context needs more materials by sources...Am I missing something? Check the source please before making next points. --Mhhosseintalk 19:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope you are able to find more sources and expand the article. I will move onto other work, and let someone else help you. Best of luck, have a great day. Flibirigit (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see that the context is already provided. Among them, see this paragraph:

"On 4 December 2018, at about midnight, 100 Israeli soldiers entered Tulkarem to raid various Palestinian homes. Several Palestinians threw stones at the soldiers, who retaliated by firing rubber-coated rounds and tear gas. In a different area of Tulkarem, about 30 of the soldiers spread out in small teams across a-Nuzha Street and an alley near al-Fadiliyah Boys' High School followed by the residents coming out of their homes and standing about 150 meters away from the soldiers near a local restaurant, to see what was going on."

I've also added the context provided by the cameras, showing the scene before the incident. What else is missing? --Mhhosseintalk 18:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering the topic in question, I think the only option forward would be to try to focus on the incident itself as opposed to what the Israelis or Palestinians did. Otherwise, the topic might just be too controversial to lead to a satisfactory hook. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 04:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the reviewer's concern was mainly regarding the "context" which I think was already provided to the extent allowed by the available sources. --Mhhosseintalk 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, when Flibirigit mentioned context, they were referring to the article itself, not the hook. The hook issues remain as of right now and honestly I think the only way to move forward would be to abandon any hook that involves IDF statements. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 06:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he's talking about the article, not the hook, and I think enough context is provided. --Mhhosseintalk 13:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the context and explanations given above, I have struck ALT1 as it ultimately does not address the issues with the original hook. Please re-read the discussion above, particularly Flibirigit's last comment from 17 February, as they also asked for a new hook. I would suggest, as I mentioned above, to focus on something other than the IDF statement. If you will be unable to propose a new, neutral hook, this nomination will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian Eaves

... that a dinner-party joke at the Metropolitan Museum of Art caused Ian Eaves to be labeled a prospective thief? Source: The joke is quoted in the New York Times coverage of a banquet at the Met: "'There's a number of things I'd like to make off with if I could be sure I would be undetected,' said a smiling Ian D.D. Eaves, curator of The Armories at Her Majesty's Tower of London." Gandert 1982 and Nathe 2015 treat this seriously (e.g., Gandert: "The idea that just about anybody is capable of theft is not farfetched. Take, for example, the statement of Ian D.D. Eaves..."). Eaves's comment was clearly a joke, as Katz 1983 points out (calling Gandert "a bit credulous").

I am concerned about the wording of the hook because of possible BLP implications. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 03:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5. What part concerns you? The hook makes it clear that Eaves was joking, and I think the article makes clear than it was ludicrous of Gandert to treat the comment — to a reporter, no less — seriously. —Usernameunique (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "to be labeled a prospective thief" specifically. Even if intended as a joke, readers may think otherwise until they read the article, and let's face it, not all hook articles are actually read by readers. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 03:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Still not really fond of that label. How about rewriting the hook to emphasize the non-seriousness of the matter? Like showing that it was a joke? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I'm a bit confused. His comment is already termed a "dinner-party joke" in the hook; does that not show that it was a joke? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant to say that it should be emphasized in the hook that the "labeling"/"mislabeling" was never intended to be serious. Plenty of serious disagreements and genuine accusations have been the results of jokes, so that not being the case here needs to be clear. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I had previously thought that your BLP concern was that the hook might treat Eaves unfairly. Your most recent comment, however, makes me think instead that you are concerned the hook may treat Gandert (the labeller/mislabeller) unfairly. Which is it? In either event, I'm happy to send you the sources if that would help—it's pretty clear that Eaves was joking, but Gandert wasn't. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I'm not sure if we can go with the hook since the hook fact is mentioned only in a footnote and not the article body itself (the article text itself is fairly vague on the incident in question and only briefly discusses it). Maybe we could try a different hook here? He seems to have had quite an interesting career so there should be other things to choose from. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, if you can point me to somewhere in the DYK rules where it says that hook facts cannot partly rely on footnotes, I will happily move the information from the footnote to the main text. Otherwise, I don't think it's an issue. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Just asked on WT:DYK and they said it should be acceptable. With that said, I'm not exactly sure why the information is in a footnote in the first place rather than the article text. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 10:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's in a footnote because the subsequent treatment of Eaves's joke doesn't appear to have involved Eaves himself; because it's a discussion of how his words were taken out of context, not in context; and because spending a fourth of the "Career" section on a single comment would seem to be undue. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I find it hard to believe that anybody could be misled by this hook, or that it could become a serious BLP issue. However, I'm not seeing the claim that he was "labelled a thief", even jokingly. His comment was used to back up a claim that anybody could become a thief, but that is not the same thing as calling him a thief. SpinningSpark 19:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Spinningspark, the hook says Eaves was labelled a prospective thief, not a thief generally. This is supported by Nathe 2005, which states that "Book thieves can be overenthusiastic hobbyists, drug addicts, gamblers, politicians, priests, librarians, night custodians, building maintenance workers, PhD candidates, library benefactors, or historians. They may steal only once. They may have their method down pat, having long been in the business of living off of stolen goods. They do not have any specific 'look' but are often charming, knowledgeable, and friendly. Ian D. D. Eaves, Curator of the Armory at Her Majesty’s Tower in London and a gentleman, said with a pleasant smile while viewing the armor collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 'There’s a number of things I’d like to make off with if I could be sure I would be undetected.'" This pretty clearly uses Eaves as an example of a (prospective) thief who comes across as a charming gentleman; in doing so, it replaces the NYT reference to Eaves "smiling" (i.e., joking) with a description of Eaves having "a pleasant smile," which carries with it a connotation of duplicity. Similarly, Gandert stated that "The idea that just about anybody is capable of theft is not farfetched. Take, for example, the statement of Ian D.D. Eaves, Curator of the Armory at Her Majesty's Tower, London, when he viewed the armor collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 'There's a number of things I'd like to make off with if I could be sure I would be undetected,' the gentleman said with a smile." This is a pretty clear indication that Gandert considered it "not farfetched" that Eaves would steal if given the chance. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

In any case, would you be able to provide an alternate hook here that doesn't involve that incident? Just as a backup in case this "thief" thing doesn't work out. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 14:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to do that Narutolovehinata5, if after a review it turns out that the hook will not work. As it stands, however, after a month of intermittent comments on this page, all that has been expressed is vague uneasiness with the hook. Moreover, your two reasons for uneasiness—BLP violation, and substantiated by information in a footnote—have been disagreed with by others. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Spinningspark is welcome to address my response above, but I believe it adequately addresses any concerns that were expressed. Meanwhile, it remains unclear why an entire month has passed without more substantive feedback than 'please suggest more hooks as a backup.' If you are not interested in reviewing the hook, I am happy to add the appropriate symbol to let someone else review this. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me, I had read your response and it did not incline me to change my position. SpinningSpark 13:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As long as there are objections to that hook fact, then we can't go with it. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 15:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Full review needed. The above discussion pertains solely to the choice of the hook, which I am happy to revisit, if needed, in the context of a full review. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A nomination can't move forward without a good hook though, and when two reviewers agree that there is something wrong (even if may be for different reasons), then that is an argument that perhaps there is another way to move forward in this case. I'm willing to do a full review of the article, but the hook issue remains pressing at this point. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 23:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I think I've adequately responded to Spinningspark's point, which, it seems, is a comment about only one of the sources used to support the hook (Gandert 1982), not the other (Nathe 2005). I'm not sure what your remaining concern is, if any; your last comment wasn't about the hook, it was about the hook fact being supported by footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, his objection stood despite the explanation given. Personally I disagree with him and think that the sources given are enough, but again, unless he withdraws his objection, we can't go with the "thief" hook I'm afraid. I understand you really want that particular hook fact to be used, but I'd like to reiterate my suggestion of proposing alternatives; who knows, there might be something about him that's even more interesting than that particular fact. And to be frank, even if the hook might not necessarily be a BLP violation, some readers might interpret it as such (having living people labeled as "thieves" on the Main Page, even if as a joke or a misunderstanding, is probably not a good idea in the first place). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, seems like we have three different people in this discussion and about five different opinions. Regardless, a statement that "I had read your response and it did not incline me to change my position," without any reasoning as to why, is hardly a comment worth getting hung up on. Without more, there is certainly no reason for us to wait for it to be withdrawn in order to proceed. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think the best option moving forward would be to propose another hook (while keeping the original one as an option), then let a new reviewer decide between the two. It could work as a compromise. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 23:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, sounds good to me. I've added two hooks above. Assuming they all work factually, let's punt the decision to the promoter; it's probably a good idea, as you suggest, to let fresh eyes make that decision. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Requesting another reviewer take a look and decide what hook to promote. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, you’re welcome to ask for another reviewer if you would like. If you are still interested in doing the review yourself, however, one option would be to check (and hopefully approve) all three hooks, and then let whoever promotes a hook to prep to decide which of the three to use. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

NOTE a full review needs to be done. Discussions have only talked about hooks. Will do if nobody else does within a week. Flibirigit (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by SirEdimon (talk). Self-nominated at 00:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC).

The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. A QPQ is not needed because this is the user's third nomination. However, the Honors section needs to be referenced. SL93 (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but which source says she is the first and only Brazilian player to win these awards? The sources above only confirm that she won the awards. Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah I just checked all the winners one by one. She is the first Brazilian to ever win any of these awards and, as she is the most recent winner, she is also, by now, the only Brazilian to ever win it.SirEdimon (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah I understand it, but it's bizarre. It's a matter of logic. If no Brazilian has ever won these awards, she's logically the first and only Brazilian to ever win it. It's just a logic thing.SirEdimon (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: Yes, but that's where original research comes in. In sports articles that I've reviewed in the past, a source is provided that shows the list of winners, and then it can be deduced that she's the only Brazilian. But you do need cited sources for "first" and "only". Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah If I find a list of winners showing that she's the only Brazilian to ever win it. Would it resolve the issue?SirEdimon (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: But it doesn't say anything about her being Brazilian; it just identifies her as a Stanford player. Isn't there a sports feature or an interview article that specifically mentions the claim you're making in the article? Yoninah (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah All the references about her winning the awards state that she's "Brazilian" or "Brazilian-born" (since she moved to the US at the age of 11/12). Also, there's an extensive interview with her, done by one of the most respected Brazilian's sports news television programs, called "Esporte Espetacular". In the interview, they talk about her childhood in Brazil. However, the interview (that can be watched here) is in Portuguese (sorry). As I told before, there are several sources indicating the nationality of the previous winners of these awards and none of them are Brazilians, Macario is the first one who is born and raised in Brazil, which can be easily confirmed by the sources. However, I can't find any sources in English that specifically mentions my claiming. I'm sorry for giving you so much work.SirEdimon (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: Your sources don't have to be in English. But they must verify the hook fact. Cobbling together one source that says she's Brazilian with another source that lists the winners won't work here. Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah Unfortunately, I can't find any sources that say exactly what I'm claiming in my hook. Perhaps in the future, some journalist will realize that she's the first Brazilian to ever win these awards. I think that's due to the fact that she is more identified as an American than as a Brazilian, despite the fact that technically she only Brazilian.SirEdimon (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

SirEdimon Oh, well. Please adjust the wording in the article. If you still want to get this on the main page, please submit a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah I've been thinking about a new hook, but I just can't find one.SirEdimon (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced information. At this point, the character count is at 1308 characters. If you can bring it up to the 1500-character minimum, you might find something else to develop a hook. Yoninah (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah I've tried another hook. If you could check it I would appreciate it. Thanks.SirEdimon (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: I think it would be helpful to those of us who don't follow sports to contrast her being born in Brazil with her winning a U.S. sports prize. If the hook gets too long, perhaps mention one of the prizes and say it's a U.S. prize. Meanwhile, the article does not meet the minimum length requirement at present. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Vikram Sood

... that spymaster Vikram Sood(pictured) was an officer of the Indian Postal Service before he joined the intelligence organisation RAW and later served as its head from 2000 to 2003?Source: "Vikram Sood came to R&AW from the Indian Postal Service and was permanently absorbed in the Research Analysis Service (R&AS), a new All India Service in R&AW created by Indira Gandhi on Kao's advice" (Rediff news).The Unending Game: Ex-spymaster Vikram Sood’s book Firstpost

ALT1:... that the difference between the Indian intelligence agency RAW and Pakistani ISI is in the latter's ability to form policy, according to ex-head of RAWVikram Sood(pictured)? Source: "The difference between Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies is in their ability to form policy, says Vikram Sood" (The Hindu)

ALT3 ... that Vikram Sood(pictured) who went on to head the intelligence organisation RAW from 2000 to 2003, was an ex-officer of the Indian Postal Service?Source: "Vikram Sood came to R&AW from the Indian Postal Service and was permanently absorbed in the Research Analysis Service (R&AS), a new All India Service in R&AW created by Indira Gandhi on Kao's advice" (Rediff news)∯WBGconverse 12:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Added Spymaster in ALT0. Between ALT0 and ALT3 I like ALT0 more because ALT3 gave me an impression that Sood directly became the chief of RAW after leaving postal service, which is not factually correct. He first joined RAW as an officer. DBigXrayᗙ 12:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I considered this nomination for review, but I am concerned the undue weight placed on the content of the book, rather than the biography of Vikram Sood. The five-time expansion of the article to qualify for DYK, is solely based on the book, rather than the person. Flibirigit (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am curious if consideration was given to write an article about the book. At first glance, it appears to pass WP:GNG for an article. Flibirigit (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

As per Flibirigit's request on my talkpage to comment ... I would like to stay away from the DYK for now. By all means the DYK can proceed, it is a good nomination and the normal process can carry on without me. Personally I am only staying away for simple reasons such as fatigue, which I have nearly got rid of but still not enough to comment directly on this. Thank you for pointing out an article on the book is possible by itself, it's a really good point. Let's see how DBigXray wants to take this forward. Winged Blades of Godric had also commented. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion: As long as the main biographical section is reliably sourced and at least 1500 characters long, it would qualify as a start-class article. IMO the whole Publications section should be moved right now to a different article about the book. And as long as that article is reliably sourced and at least 1500 characters long, you could develop a double hook for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Flibirigit Sorry for the late reply, I was busy elsewhere. In response to the concerns on article length for DYK eligibility criteria.

The article as it stands right now has 4949 characters over all. (almost 7x expansion overall) (1744 characters (2.5x expansion) in Bio plus 3203 characters in Publications)

So the assertion that The five-time expansion of the article to qualify for DYK, is solely based on the book, rather than the person is not accurate.

If you believe that the publication section is unduly large then I am willing to trim some of it, so that the DYK can proceed, although I would prefer not to.

Regarding the suggestion of forking out a separate article for the book, possibly when we have more critical reviews from reliable publishers in media, then we can start a fresh book article. currently the coverage has very less critical component and mostly deals with book excerpts as is expected for a newly released book on a topic of espionage that catches public attention.

I also seriously gave thoughts to writing double hook but could not think of a good one that can include both. The current hook looks good and interesting to me,

As User:Yoninah also suggested the article as it stands is eligible for DYK. So it would be greatly appreciated if you can change your mind and agree to pass this current DYK.DBigXrayᗙ 21:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have looked at this again, but my opinion has not changed. The major expansion of the article to qualify for DYK is overwhelming from the book summary. The actual biography of Mr. Sood was barely doubled, which is not close to a 5X expansion. The undue weight of the book in this article will not pass for neutrality. I recommend to find a lot more information about the person, or create an article about the book instead. Flibirigit (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I keep seeing myself being pinged here, but haven't had time yet to reply. I'm moving the book right now to its own article; it doesn't make sense to leave it the way it is. Then we can talk about whether the biography is long enough. Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I will be happy to consider the book's article for DYK. We can use this same page already in progress. I will check back later to see how that article is progressing. Flibirigit (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, would you mind submitting news hooks here using the book? I will do a proper review once new hooks are listed here. Flibirigit (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I will submit separate DYK for the book after further improvements there. Will continue this DYK for the BIO as was originally intended.DBigXrayᗙ 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT4:... that spymaster Vikram Sood(pictured) was an officer of the Indian Postal Service before he joined the intelligence organisation RAW and later served as its head ?Source: "Vikram Sood came to R&AW from the Indian Postal Service and was permanently absorbed in the Research Analysis Service (R&AS), a new All India Service in R&AW created by Indira Gandhi on Kao's advice" (Rediff news).The Unending Game: Ex-spymaster Vikram Sood’s book Firstpost

Full review requested by a new reviewer for ALT4. Based on the feedback by previous reviewer several changes have been made in the article. The book summary section has been greatly reduced and other sections have been added to provide more weight to the biography section. The current version of the article after new updates is still 6.5x expansion of the article version before the DYK nomination. DBigXrayᗙ 20:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I will complete the review as I promised to do above. Flibirigit (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall: Accepting article on the book as new enough, based on the previous nomination of Vikram Sood, and request to split the contents. Length and sourcing are adequate. Tone is neutral. No plagiarism issues detected. QPQ is not required since nominator has less than five DYK credits. The hook offers no insight into the book. Another suggestion somehow incorporating the book is needed. A photograph of the book release may be used, by the photograph nominated here does not appear in the article. It needs to be added, or a different nominated. When multiple citations are used, they should appear in numerical order, that is [1][2][3] etc. Use of acronyms needs to be consistent, either RAW of R&AW, not both. Also, when acronyms appear, the first usage should be in the form of "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)". Flibirigit (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Question: Clarification needed if the nomination is solely for the Vikram Sood article, or also for the book. I will assume that both are wanted, and will now review the biography. Flibirigit (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall: Biography is new enough, and nominated on time. Length is adequate. Tone is neutral. No plagiarism issues detected. QPQ is not required since nominator has less than five DYK credits. Use of acronyms needs to be consistent, either RAW of R&AW, and IPoS or IPs, not both. The first paragraph in the career section is not cited. In the career section, the word "Currently" should be altered to avoid a dated sentence. "As of date, he is" or similar is preferred. The word "spymaster" in the hook does not appear in the article. Similar language needs to be used, otherwise it is cited. Flibirigit (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What's going on here? Why not a double hook that's going to appeal to a worldwide audience? Here is a suggestion:

Refs added for career section. RAW replaced with R&AW. IPoS is different from IPS, added wikilink for Indian Police Service (IPS). removed currently and added "As of 2019". added spymaster in the lead. DBigXrayᗙ 22:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray and Yoninah: ALT5 is a very catchy hook and is cited accordingly. I agree it would appeal to a wider audience. I would easily approve it with some minor edits to the book's article as mentioned in its review. Flibirigit (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The use of acronyms in the book's article still need to be cleaned up. All other issues resolved. Flibirigit (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have struck ALT4 in preference of ALT5. Double credits for two articles added. Flibirigit (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

approving ALT5, with all issues now resolved on both articles. Flibirigit (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘Flibirigit, May I ask you despite being the nominator of this DYK who has spent so much efforts in improving this article why my requests and comments are being sidelined and ignored ? ALT2 and its derivative ALT5 are both indeed interesting DYKs, but they are focussing on the Book and hence it is more suitable as a DYK for the book article. ALT4 that I nominated on this BIO article is based on the biography of the person. Someone working as a Post officer rose on to become the highest spy of the country. This is indeed an interesting DYK. Whatever issues you reported with the Article Vikram Sood has been cleared and if there are any more concenrs related to DYK4 then please let me know and we can decide on it. The DYK on the book with other suitable ALTs will be submitted later, when I am done with the book article.DBigXrayᗙ 12:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I considered comments from all users involved in the review. I feel that ALT5 is the best hook overall for both articles. It is very catchy, and will appeal to a much broader audience than the others. ALT4 will not appeal to a broad audience, especially readers unfamiliar with topics from India. The wording in ALT5 is relatable to many poeple, and having two featured articles in the same hook will generate much more traffic to the articles, and it more likely to have this nomination in the photo slot at the top, rather than hidden down below. This also means both nominations are approved at the same time, and two credits are given at the same time. Flibirigit (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As I already said that I am not opposed to ALT4 and in fact I support it to proceed as a DYK for the book article since it covers the book. The picture can also be used for the book article in the photo slot. The point of disagreement here is using the book DYK for bio article. and Sidelining ALT4 which is based on BIO article. I think there is a clear difference of opinion between us because I believe that a DYK that says "A post officer went on to become a spymaster" is something that has an international appeal and is actually very inspiring to everyone. Thats why I had requested a new reviewer but you insisted on reviewing the same again. Now kindly guide how can we proceed ahead with this. As I said, the BIO Article is ready from my side so ALT4 should proceed with this BIO. I will further improve the book article and then nominate it with the "very catchy" ALT5. And hopefully everyone can be happy about it. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: you are certainly entitled to nominate each article individually and have two different hooks. However, your extremely nationcentric view and the rather unhooky wording of ALT4 is not going to attract as many hits on the main page as ALT5, which includes elements that are familiar to a worldwide audience (note that the James Bond article averages close to 4,000 hits per day). If your goal is to get lots of people to read your articles, please reread the points Flibirigit has made in his last post and opt for a hook that will either be placed in the highly visible first (image) or the last (quirky) slot. If you are not interested in attracting many clicks, then go ahead with ALT4. (You can also expect complaints at WP:ERRORS as to how ALT4 meets the criteria for "interesting to a broad audience".)Yoninah (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The merits of ALT5 is not the point of disagreement. ALT5 will still proceed as a separate DYK. The disagreement is over discarding the Biography based ALT4 and using ALT5 as a double hook. You feel that ALT4 may not get as many hits, but I am bullish [i.e. optimistic]Updated over this inspirational hook and I have high hopes that it will easily cross the 5k hit count to reach DYK stats page. So yes I would like to proceed with the ALT4 for this bio article. DBigXrayᗙ 18:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC) updated on 07:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So write it better. Don't write it in a linear way, that Sood did this and then did that and then did that. Write it hooky! Yoninah (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here are other variations of ALT4. DBigXrayᗙ 18:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT6:... that spymaster Vikram Sood(pictured) started his career in the India Post and went on to become the head of the intelligence organisation RAW?

ALT7:... that spymaster Vikram Sood(pictured) who became the head the intelligence organisation RAW, was an ex-officer of the India Post?

I think it's unadvisable to have an image with ALT9. Besides, the image is showing him at a book launch. I'm okay with ALT5 and ALT9. @Flibirigit: you do not have to open a new nomination page. Just clearly list each hook at the bottom of this thread and the promoter will close the nomination after promoting the second hook. Also please make a note that these nominations should be well spaced apart, at least two weeks apart if not more, as they deal with the same subject. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah I agree with the above comments about no photo on ALT9 and spacing out the hooks by a couple weeks. DBigXray, are there any other objections before going ahead? Flibirigit (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

no objections. I will try to find another image tomorrow. DBigXrayᗙ 21:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? Striking ALT9 and other hooks and keeping ALT8 for approval.

@DBigXray: please give this a rest already. Your hooks will run far apart with no image for either one. Your "bullish" attitude is getting you nowhere. It's too bad that you didn't agree to the double hook in the image slot; you really would have reached your 5k goal that way.Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I agree with Yoninah. ALT8 can proceed with no photo, as the hook is suitable for the quirky slot without a photo. ALT5 can also proceed with no photo for a hook on the book, as photo on the book launch is not suitable for protraying the book. The offer is still there for the double hook with a photo that is very likely to get a lot of hits from the top slot, or two single hooks with no photos. Both Yoninah and I recommend the double hook. Flibirigit (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems like the intent is to get Vikram Sood featured on the main page on Wikipedia twice, with a photo each time. That would go against the fundamental spirit of DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm No. Flibirigit. Just like any other BIO DYK with a pic this is a BIO DYK with a pic. Since you had claimed that there are issues with using the Book launch pic for BIO DYK, hence I propsed this another pic. Lets just WP:AGF, shall we? DBigXrayᗙ 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And I had only nominated 1 BIO article with a DYK. Also note that WP:CFORKING a separate book article was neither my idea, nor did I forked the article. So please do not make such allegations. DBigXrayᗙ 15:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It also seems like we are spinning our wheels here. ALT6 and ALT7 have been struck, but the nominator is still insisting on running them. This thread is confusing and overlong and I recommend shutting it down right now. @Flibirigit: please list the two hooks you are approving at the bottom of this thread, add instructions for separate promotion, and let's end this already. Yoninah (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I noted that I prefer all three DYKs 6, 7 or 9. and I gave my reasons for it. I am fine if any of it is chosen. I understand your proposal for not using the image but I am not convinced by that reasoning. rest is upto the reviewer. Regarding the BOOK DYK I am not sure what the procedure is, I think the clean way would be to keep it separate DYK instead of mixing it here. DBigXrayᗙ 15:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT8 is approved. ALT5 is now being used on a separate nomination. All other hooks are declined, and have been struck. Flibirigit (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "It has a bold critique of major intelligence failures, including the ones that made 9/11 attacks in the USA possible" with "a bold critique of spectacular intelligence failures, including those which made possible the 9/11 attacks". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have went through the sources once again to fix these concerns. Please see if the tag can now be removed. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that specific example; however, issues remain. Another example is "Pakistan would first need to shut down the machinery of terrorism and give evidence to India that a change of heart has happened" vs "They need to give evidence that a change of heart has happened and they have shut the terror machinery" - the order is flipped but otherwise the wording is almost identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria this is the subject's viewpoint and after your feedback, I have now changed it to a direct statement with quotes so as not to digress from his actual words and keep the meaning intact. I hope there is nothing more that escaped my notice. DBigXrayᗙ 06:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Afraid so - another example is the end of the lead, which is closely paraphrased from the book's description on the Penguin India site. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Y fixed Nikkimaria, thanks for the kind feedbacks. Please let me know if the tag can now be removed and the DYK can proceed. DBigXrayᗙ 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have again edited the specific example mentioned. Have you reviewed the rest of the article compared to its sources, cited or not, to look for other issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It might make sense for you to seek assistance with this from a relevant WikiProject, or potentially the Guild? Issues persist. Another example is "The book gives a national and international perspective on methods of accumulating intelligence from outside the country, the relevance of intelligence to secure and propagate the national interests, and the reason why intelligence is the primary playing fields in the game of nations." vs "provides a national and international perspective on gathering external intelligence, its relevance in securing and advancing national interests, and why intelligence is the first playground in the game of nations." I'd also suggest reviewing WP:CLOP and applying it not only to this article but other creations/additions you've made as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimariathis was already fixed in the lead, but missed in the body. It has been updated as was done in the lead. The CLOP issues should have all been addressed now. Kindly review. DBigXrayᗙ 05:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Article is new enough (created Jan 7, nominated Jan 14), long enough (>1500 characters), is suitably cited, and appears free from plagiarism, paraphrasing and non-neutral language. Assuming some good faith in translating from German Wikipedia since I can't properly vet the original German sources. Image is free and suitably licensed, QPQ done. The hook however needs a bit more consideration. It's not very interesting: an Austrian actor touring the United States is boring and not at all remarkable. A well written tease regarding an 1895 piece called "The Nazi" (we should use English) could be enticing, but I can't seem to actually verify it: the sources cited don't seem to mention "Der Nazi" with respect to Lindau, and I don't see the term "Nazi" in Lindau's WorldCat or DNB listing. (It would also be nice to explain what the name "Nazi" here refers to, as it predates the National Socialist party by some time: was it referring to "a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards farmer or peasant"?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 03:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. At the time, German-language theatre was not common to tour the US, other than the big cities, - I'd say not even today. - [36][37][38] - Even if I knew what Nazi meant for him (probably you found out), I'd not say it in the hook, - readers should click to find out ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the first part of the hook is not interesting to a broad audience, it requires the implicit foreknowledge that A: Lindau spoke German, B: German-language theatre was not common in the U.S. at the time. I think a hook's appeal should extend more broadly than German theatre historians. I've proposed an Alt1 hook, which is more broadly enticing, and shorter hooks are preferred.

I got that ALT1 down here (from above my signature). Too tired to object, but I think co-writing one comedy is too small an aspect of an actor who excelled enough to be chosen for an international tour. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

requesting a review of Alt1. The point of DYK is not to encapsulate the most noteworthy fact of a subject, it is to draw in readers from diverse views (especially those who know nothing of the subject) with an interesting, surprising, or unusual fact. The article itself doesn't suggest that he was 'chosen', nor that his touring the U.S. was remarkable or unusual in itself, merely that it happened and was successful. If there is more context in the German sources, please expand the article. Creating a comedy called "The Nazi" is hooky. Traveling to another country is not. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. I am known for wanting to give some knowledge about a subject even to those who will not click, but as you wish. - I didn't even write this article, and several more urgent things are waiting than expanding it. Happy Valentine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT1 sounds fine to me, but it might be a good idea to add more information about it on Lindau's article, if information could be found (this is optional by the way, and its non-inclusion won't affect this nomination). @LouisAlain: If you like ALT1, it will be approved, but if not, feel free to suggest another hook. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with ALT1 but couldn't find anything about his plays Heißes Blut (Hot Blood, 1892), and Ein armes Mädel (A Poor Girl, 1893). I've just added a ref from Gallica and will create stubs about the German names currently in red. LouisAlain (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting: N - I don't think this hook is sufficiently interesting. It's not surprising that a notable opera singer has performed internationally, and roles such as Elvira and Lucia tend to be sung by similar types of sopranos.

Of course the roles are sung by similar kinds of sopranos, but they define what kind she is, bel canto, not dramatic, + both roles are known for being difficult. We could mention specific places, but I have been told not to promote the same houses again and again. We could talk about her breasts as one review does, but I'm not into that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Buidhe here, we'll need a new hook here as the current one is not very interesting; I've thus struck it. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That girl gets mad because her fiancee leaves her on their wedding day to rescue another woman. We can mention "alongside John Osborn" but then you'll say you don't know him, sigh. If you don't, I could improve his article and mention it in hers. - I'm on vacation ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fundamental problem here sadly, in that it's still a hook that goes "That Opera singer X appeared as Y in Z". The best option here will probably be to try a hook that doesn't involve her opera roles. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 22:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not willing. Would you demand that we write a hook about Shakespeare without mentioning a play? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Not as much, but theoretically it would be possible to write hooks about Shakespeare that focus on things other than his plays (for example, his personal life). An opera singer performing for an opera is not exactly a spectacular hook fact, and by itself is rarely interesting to a broad audience (an equivalent hook for example would be something like "that television actor John Doe played the role of James Dale in Television Series?". It's just not hooky. If there are no other possible options, unfortunately this may have to be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 23:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Patiently trying again. I'd feel like cheating my audience if I'd mention some quirky little fact about Shakespeare, but failed to say that he wrote comedies and tragedies, naming one example of each. Please take a look at the collection of operatic hooks. Bellini was not mentioned even once!! I puritani is a decent article, and the theatre was just destubbed, so is new as well. If that is not what DYK is for, I don't know what is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘@Narutolovehinata5 and Gerda Arendt: Unfortunately, no. Judging from her article, she is quite successful as an opera singer but hasn't done anything especially interesting or unusual. buidhe 17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a DYK requirement to have done something unusual, + her personal interpretation of that role IS unusual. I saw it. LouisAlain, does the French review show that? (In Germany, the premiere was sung by Brenda Rae, so reviews are about her whom everybody should know. + the opera house and the opera should get known, - isn't that the purpose of DYK?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, I've found 3 articles in French about this singer. You'll read the rough translations on my Sandbox page. Hope it will help. LouisAlain (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! We read in the last article (Lucia di Lammermoor, mentioned in the original hook): "From the outset, and throughout the show, a Lucia who never ceases to amaze by what the performer seems to have understood both of the role and herself. ..." which confirms what I think about her. How can we proceed? The full quote is too long for her article. Anybody in for a summary that she is not only vocally stupendous but plays the character with sensitivity and intensity? - In the first review, she was sick. The biography (no 2) is good and supports the article. Feel free to add, - I go outside for another vacation day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case, it still seems that we need a new hook to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

... or someone to look at those suggested with different eyes. Busy after a travel day, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's actualy not rare that singers study other instruments and conducting (a good preparation for getting older, and even a requirement at institutions, like instrumentalists have to study also a second instruments), so thanks, - but she's known for singing these parts, and in a way that critics say "ideal" or "a revelation", - just I'd like to stay factual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Then perhaps some material needs to be added, to include that kind of comment, which can then be used in a DYK? Something could be made of comments on the Lucia mad scene here]. Another possible fact that's not currently in the article is that her opera debut occurred at 16 (click on the biography tab).

Good idea. I doubt that the "mad" link would qualify as reliable, though. Just returned from vacation, with a lot of open threads, unfortunately. Patience please. Debut as a teenager is not unusual. Look at Wilma Lipp. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT5: ... that reviewers found the Czech soprano Zuzana Marková an ideal singer and actor of Massenet's Manon? - one said "Traumbesetzung", my translator says "dream cast", - we can use it if it's a term. My problem: We mentioned Manon already in an opera DYK, but never Puritani. I'd still prefer the first hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Scythian Archers

... that the so-called Scythian archers may have functioned as police force in ancient Athens? Source: "In late 5th and early 4th cent. BC Athens used a body of Scythian archers as public slaves (Demosioi) who were to keep order"[39])

Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 16:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC).

Hi ZxxZxxZ, this article is currently too short for DYK - it needs more than 1500 characters of prose. I guess you may be working on expanding it? Happy to continue the review when you do so (sourcing etc. is looking good), just ping me to let me know - Dumelow (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi ZxxZxxZ: The article has now been expanded above 1500 characters; I 've checked it through and rewritten a few bits to improve the grammar; article is cited inline throughout to reliable sources; no copyright violation noted from (the few) accessible sources, happy to AGF on the remainder; hook is interesting and mentioned in article, not all sources are accessible but the Braund one backs up the hook; image is free and used in article; I note you have five DYK notices on your talk page so you will now need to provide a QPQ review of another hook before this one can be accepted (see item 5 of the DYK rules - Dumelow (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ZxxZxxZ, that's fine as long as you intend to finish it! All good here - Dumelow (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: I came to promote this, but the approved hook doesn't make it clear that the group's existence is hypothetical; suggesting that either a new hook be proposed, or the current one be re-worded. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 04:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5, I thought that "so-called" and "may have" made this clear myself. Can't think of a punchier way to put it at the moment, happy to review any alternate hooks from the nominator - Dumelow (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys. There is no dispute in the existence of such group called the Scythian archers. The hypothetical aspects are their role and whether they were exactly Scythians and/or archers, which is reflected in the hook as Dumelow pointed out. Regards --Z 09:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The hook doesn't make it clear whether it's the most liked post on Instagram of all time or the most liked post online of all time. The article says both (the second would obviously be more significant). If you mean the second, then that's not directly cited in the article; the only citation following the claim taking the world record for the most liked online post is this which doesn't mention anything about the egg.

There's a citation needed tag in the history section

Anastasia Denisova, a researcher of internet memes at the University of Westminster, compares it to the campaign to get a British research vessel named Boaty McBoatface, which is not in a quote, is almost directly copied-and-pasted from http://www.wired.co.uk/article/instagram-egg-world-record.

Besides the AfD problem, the issues pointed out above are fairly minor. Overall, the article appears to be well-written and I absolutely love the hook. --SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: Aside of the fact you shouldn't have moved the nominations page because it has made a bit of a mess with the redirect, the AFD has been closed as no consensus so the review can proceed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@The C of E: Hmm, from what I know the nomination page should be moved if the article is moved during the nomination, but if I'm wrong please let me know and I'd be happy to self-revert. But to me, it just doesn't seem to make sense to have the nomination under a different title than the article. What mess has been made with the redirect? I've fixed the transclusions on Template talk:Did you know and Talk:Instagram egg. And for user talk links and such, the redirect exists anyways so it's not like it's a dead link. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

But yeah, the AFD and move discussion have been closed now and the article has not been deleted or merged so this can continue. Before this is eligible for approval, the issues I pointed out will need to be resolved; also, On 18 January 2019, the account posted a second picture of an egg, almost identical to the first one apart from a small crack on the top left hand edge. As of 21 January 2019, the post accumulated 7.7 million likes. needs sourcing - it looks like that was added after my original review.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The offending copy/paste lift of language has been rewritten.

I can't find a source for the 50.3 million hits. Since I didn't put that information in, can somebody tell us where it came from?

The present hook is not mine. My original hook (which got messed up with the formatting) was simpler. In any event, the draftor of this hook should comment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I put in ALT 1, which was the hook I originally proposed. It may not be as 'hooky' as the other, and I defer to our overlords. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I posted the new draft for the DYK. I thought it sounded better. AceTankCommander (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a Wikipedia community effort and it's all Okay with me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Adequate sourcing: N - This source, which was added to two previously uncited paragraphs, does not support a lot of the material there. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to have two paragraphs supported solely by Instagram. In addition, unless I'm missing something, neither of the sources in the second paragraph seems to support that the egg post became the most-liked post ever online.

Neutral: N - I might be being too picky here, which if I am I apologize, but "The significance of the event and its massive republishing is itself controversial" doesn't seem to be explicitly mentioned in the quote and seems more of a vague interpretation.

Cited: N - As above, unless I'm missing something, neither of the sources in the second paragraph seems to support that the egg post became the most-liked post ever online.

Interesting: Y

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I've finally done a full review. Thanks to everyone for addressing the issues that I pointed out, but as you can see, a few more issues remain before this is DYK ready. My hook preference is ALT2, but of course only if we can find a source for it. Best, --SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I have re-reviewed the article now and it's closer but there are still a few minor problems:

I still don't see where any of the sources say that it's the most-liked post online; all of them just say it's the most liked post on Instagram.

Neither of the sources after the sentence It continues to post frequent updates in the form of Instagram Stories seem to support that material

Not sure where source 19 directly supports It is seen as a triumph of community over celebrity

Tapping a heart pictogram is easy, and eggs are lovable really seems out of place. Anyway we could incorporate this better, maybe give attribution to who said this to avoid the appearance of an unencyclopedic tone, or put this in quotes?

The article is definitely coming along. There are a few more suggestions I have, particular about sourcing, but they're quite minor and unlikely to be worth bringing up. After all, this is DYK, not FA. :P--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me start with point 3. I've added another source. One of these says: "The Instagrammer’s success is a rare victory for the unpaid viral campaign on social media. “There is a bit of an anti-celebrity revolt here – ‘look what we can do with a simple egg’”, says Anastasia Denisova, a researcher of internet memes at the University of Westminster, who compares it to the campaign to get a British research vessel named Boaty McBoatface." That should answer that question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

As to point 4, "As Vogue observed, tapping a heart pictogram is easy, and eggs are lovable." That should answer that question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The main issue I had still exists: I can't find a source directly supporting that it became the most liked content in the world. I don't see how the quote provided from the Guardian ref supports that. Pinging AceTankCommander. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Welp, I'm not sure how I missed something so obvious, I'm sorry for not seeing that. In that case, ALT0 and ALT2 should be fine. I'm not sure about ALT1, as it's really not something that you can directly support with a source or add to the article (neither of these conditions are met currently).--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: ALT1 has now been stricken, so that problem is solved. I've done a quick review of the article, and there are sourcing improvements that could be made, but I don't consider them substantial enough to be an issue. ALT0 and ALT2 are supported by the Washington Post reference, cited in the article, and interesting. I prefer ALT0 as it is clearer than ALT2. I hate to put this on hold any further, but there is a copyvio/close paraphrasing issue in the article. Much of the fifth paragraph is directly copied from this source (see [40]), so please fix this and then this can probably be approved. Thanks!--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait, actually I misread the Washington Post reference, I apologize. It says to become the most liked post on the platform, ever, Ten days later, we can report that the egg has done it, and Congratulations to this egg on becoming Instagram's most-liked post ever. It mentions nothing about being the most liked post in the world or of all time, only about being the most-liked post on Instagram. I accidentally read "most liked post on the platform" as "most liked post on any platform". Therefore, neither ALT0 or ALT2 are correctly cited; either a new source saying that it became the liked post of all web content will need to be found or a new hook will need to be suggested. Thanks and sorry for not catching that before.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall: A good, albeit highly technical article. Length and newness are fine. I can't see all the sources, but the article reflects those that I can. I think that ALT1 is the more interesting hook and happy to approve on that basis. Bermicourt (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't see "dusty disk" anywhere in the article or sources. Mention is made of a "dust lane". Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: In the article is mentioned as dust disk, and in the arxiv pdf of entry assosiated with the first source is mentioned as dusty disk. [43]C messier (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Created by SoWhy (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC).

Review New enough, long enough (just barely), every paragraph cited. No apparent copyright violations (Earwig is clear at 3.8%). Hooks are neutral, but not very exciting to me. I prefer the original hook. Hooks are supported by WP:RS. QPQ is owed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: Thanks for the review, I added the QPQ. Regards SoWhy 13:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 13:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

Article was created within the last seven days, is over the required prose size and has no copyvio issues. The hook is interesting and has an inline citation to a reliable source. User has supplied a QPQ review to meet the requirement, good to go. Kosack (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Returned from queue with hook and article issues. Here is the pertinent conversation at ERRORS:

Extended content

@CeeGee:@Kosack: there is an issue with the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Konya Tropical Butterfly Garden, which is part of the DYK set due to go live at midnight today. The hook says it "has the largest butterfly flight area in Europe", but it isn't actually in Europe. It's in the Asian part of Turkey . Are you able to come up with an alternative hook that we could use? If not, I will replace it and reopen the nomination page. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is said "in Europe" because Turkey, as a country, is considered part of Europe. You can check it in all politicial, economic, sportive etc. issues. It doesn't matter that the site in question is located geographically in the Asian part of the country. CeeGee 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It matters to this reader. There is a huge difference between "in Europe" and "in a European country". Or can things in French Guiana be considered for "largest/fastest/smallest/most expensive/etc in Europe"? This hook is blatantly false and should not appear. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree we should pull it. I am not up on the technical aspects of the DYK system, so I can't do it, but this is clearly a dispute, and until the dispute is resolved, we should either pull it or move it to a later posting, to get the wording correct. I too am uncomfortable describing a thing which is physically located on the Asian continent as being "the largest in Europe", and as such, I think we need a better hook. Unless we can fix it in the next few hours, we should move this back to the prep area, take another good hook to replace this one, and get this one right. --Jayron32 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

What Jayron said: both that it should be switched out and discussed some more without the time constraint, and that I'm not up on the intricacies of the DYK system. Pinging @Amakuru:, who has (from a review of the queue history) pulled DYK hooks recently and appears to know what they are doing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Didn't notice they were the ones who started this thread. I think there's enough agreement that Amakuru could make this change without being "involved". I would certainly do it myself if I knew how. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and removed the hook. Anyone who sees this and understands DYK, please reopen the discussion, and replace with a new hook. In case no one who understands DYK sees this, I'll also ping WT:DYK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Floq. Apologies, I was out and about tonight so didn't see this message until just now. — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Created by Anupam (talk). Self-nominated at 23:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

@Anupam: Full review to follow, but I would suggest (as advice and not as requirement) that the article be reorganized; right now the lede is longer than any of the other sections (including the History section if you exclude the quote). Perhaps some of the content in the lede could be moved to the History section or be discussed in a new section? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Created by Pharos (talk). Self-nominated at 17:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC).

Some problems: 1) the article deals exclusively with US Presidential campaigns but does not say so in the lead. I don't think the term is used elsewhere in the world (it's not really relevant in many Westminster-style constitutions) so a re-title is probably best. 2) The one-line paras (one without a ref) should be merged. 3) In the ALT hook - "less" than who or what? I suppose less-likely contenders but this threw me somewhat.

Main hook checks out, though a stronger source would be nice. New, long, and neutral enough. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a review but a comment, but campaign announcements do exist in other countries with a presidential style of government. At the very least, they're a thing in the Philippines, though it's not exactly universal. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Created by Theodore Xu (talk). Self-nominated at 02:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC).

Unfortunately a new hook might be needed here as the hook fact is not very interesting to those who do not have a background in Chinese history. Maybe there could be a mention of Manchuria somewhere here instead? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nb. The nominator was never notified on their talk page of the concern above, so I added a notice there (diff). North America1000 11:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the nominator was not properly notified about the review, and I sincerely apologize for that. However, he has not edited since the day of the nomination, and in any case has been unable to respond. Considering the issues with the hook and this situation, unless he returns or another editor decides to adopt this nomination, it is with regret that this nomination is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Created by Anupam (talk). Self-nominated at 23:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

I'm honestly not sure if the article subject meets the notability guidelines; I understand that the book is old and was published in 1938, but the sources in the article seem to be more about Maulana than the book itself (at least based on the quotations) Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5, if you perform search for the book with its Urdu title متحدہ قومیت اور اسلام‬, there are a plethora of results, apart from the English ones in the article. As the article was only recently created, there is a lot of expansion that can be done. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd suggest beefing up the article more at this point. While the article itself is long enough for DYK, the article doesn't really seem to go into much detail about the book itself, but rather Maulana's life. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Full review to follow, but right now, I am not very fond of the "Structure and dimensions" section. For one thing, it reads like a trivia section, and secondly, two of the statements are unsourced. Perhaps the section could be rewritten in prose format and the unsource statements be properly sourced? Also, it might need an additional section since the "lede" right now is almost the entire article. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You're right this article wasn't fully prepared for the main page. It was created and largely written by someone else, and I rushed to nominate it to get it within the time rule of 7 days. I'll try to get it ready today. Iselilja (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating this article. With regards to the weight of the sculpture, I emailed the artist Linda Bakke and she replied telling me the weight. I wasn't sure how to describe this source in the article.BrightOrion (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the article looks a lot better, and now meets almost all the relevant DYK criteria. Although a QPQ was performed, it was not required as this is the nominator's first nomination. However, there doesn't seem to be any references in the article for the statue's dimensions and weight, and it wasn't in the Norwegian source I checked. Could you please address this so that this nomination can move forward? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the weight from the infobox as I couldn't find any reliable sources for it. As for lenght, the article says 11.5 m while reliable sources say 12 m. which is probably an approximation. As I think nominator has info from the artist, I let 11.5 stand in article/infobox, while adding a source in article that says 12 m. We can change it to 12 m. if you insist, but probably will make article less accurate. As for QPQ, article creator BrightOrion could have nominated it without QPQ, but since I nominated it, I don't think the QPQ exception applies. Iselilja (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Correspondence with the artist probably counts as original research so I don't think you'd be allowed to cite that unless the information was already reported elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 04:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmad Wani

...that first Ashoka Chakra (pictured) recipient from Kashmir Nazir Ahmad Wani was a militant before he surrendered and joined the Indian Army ? Source: "Lance Naik Nazir Ahmed Wani, ... was once an ikhwan (a terrorist who surrenders and becomes involved in counter-insurgency operations) before joining the Army...Wani was a terrorist initially and became a counter-insurgent after he realised the futility of violence. (Times of India) "Kashmir's first Ashok Chakra for Lance Naik Nazir Ahmad Wani" (The Hindu)

Created by Dominic (talk). Self-nominated at 01:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC).

Drive-by comment: The hook is quite repetitive with "United States" and "federal government shutdown" repeated twice. Not everything needs to be linked, either. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

At 228 characters, the hook is too long for DYK, which has an absolute maximum of 200, and has been struck. Please provide a new, shorter hook, keeping in mind Yoninah's advice to avoid repetition and excessive linking. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Juan Carlos de la Cruz Reyna

... that Juan Carlos de la Cruz Reyna tried to bribe an undercover agent to ensure he was released from prison to members of a drug cartel? Source: "... undercover agent regarding making bribery payments to facilitate a transfer of De La Cruz to a Texas facility as well as his release to elements of the Gulf Cartel instead of Mexican authorities. (FBI)

ALT1:... that Juan Carlos de la Cruz Reyna tried to bribe an undercover agent with nearly US$800,000 to allow his family to visit him in prison? Source: "De La Cruz Reyna and his crew made a deal with a U.S. undercover agent who was posing as a corrupt immigration officer hungry for a bribe ... These services had included providing travel document’s for De la Cruz Reyna’s family to visit him while hew as in prison. (Houston Chronicle); "A former Gulf Cartel plaza boss for Tampico said he tried to bribe a U.S. public official nearly $800,000 ..." (The Brownsville Herald)

Comment: Note: De la Cruz Reyna wanted to bribe an undercover agent for multiple reasons: ensure he was delivered to members of the Gulf Cartel, to have his family visit him in prison, and to not notify Mexican authorities of his release to Mexico. All these are cited in the article.

Moved to mainspace by MX (talk). Self-nominated at 02:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC).

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC).

Article seems to meet the article requirements for DYK. Considering the sensitivity of the topic, the article presenting the matter factually and in a neutral manner is good. QPQ done. I am however concerned with the hook wording: it's factual and based on what the source says, but I feel the language might be a bit too strong. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would have been fine with the "refused" wording. But this is linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I'd rather be safe than sorry with that. The thought I had was to use "would not allow" instead of "refused", or something like that. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I may not know much about that as a British Christian but I'm going by the fact that the BBC used it and the BBC does have a reputation for being fairly unbiased when it comes to reporting so I am not prepared to change it because I can't see how using "refused" would trigger anyone involved in the Israel-Palestine issue. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a new hook is needed here as the hook is simply not interesting to a non-Indian audience. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the only thing in the article that could be moulded into a hook. @Narutolovehinata5:, if you have any other suggestion for a hook, please do give, otherwise please go ahead and pass/decline the DYK as per your conviction. JupitusSmart 15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is nothing much I can suggest at this point. It appears he won some kind of award, but again the problem is the limited audience for that information. If something could be mentioned about his involvement in the IRI, then perhaps that could work, but if not, then I'm afraid closing might be the only way forward. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Toofan Singh

... that over 400,000 people attended the funeral ceremony of Toofan Singh? Source: "over 400,000 people attended the funeral ceremony of Toofan Singh" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Comment: Was thinking of nominating it before the expiration of the timestamp.

Tag removed because it was not probably a valid one per discussion.[46]Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks valid to me, and should not have been removed by the article's author. I have reverted the removal. The neutrality discussion should take place on the article's talk page. (See Template:POV#When_to_remove.) There is a problem with the hook, in that it is an exact copy of the source's wording as given here. We can't copy without quoting. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

What about Template:POV#When to use? Where is the discussion? Drive by tagging is not the way. Hook is not the copy of the source. You need to provide evidence of that. It cannot be quoted because it appears to be backed by multiple reliable sources. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Harmanprtjhj, I looked at the hook, and then the Source quoted right after it, and drew the natural conclusion that the Source was a quote, and the hook echoed the source. What I didn't realize was that you had mistakenly entered the hook in the Source section, and valereee simply copied it into proper hook format while leaving the Source listing intact, making it look like the hook was identical to the Source, which appeared to be a quote from your original entry. I'm sorry the confusion arose.

However, there still appear to be significant issues. With regard to the neutrality, the article includes such sentences as Singh was glorified as a martyr, and poets sang in praise of his bravery. This is a non-neutral sentence in Wikipedia's voice (and rather flowery at that, rather than encyclopedic in tone): there is no explanation of who glorified him nor what poetry or song arose and how extensive it might have been. Context is everything, and crucial here. With regard to the hook, since I don't read the language I put the two sources cited for his funeral through Google translate, and got the following:

From bhaskar.com: It is said that around four lakh people gathered in tribute to him during the funeral.

From aajtak.intoday.in: It is said that four lakh people attended the funeral of Jugraj.

These are very similar, but what struck me is that both sources use wording that translates as "It is said that": in short, they don't know themselves, and are going by numbers of unknown quality or neutrality that may be accurate or may be significantly off in either direction. The article, to reflect the sources, needs to include that qualification, as would the hook. (The "over" with regard to the 400,000 in the hook doesn't appear to be supported, but I'm leery of trusting Google translate to get that level of nuance correct.)

Thomas D Mangelsen

... that wildlife photographer Thomas D Mangelsen took a photograph of Grizzly 399 he dubbed "An Icon of Motherhood" that made her the most famous mother grizzly in the world? Source: His photographs, especially the one he dubbed, "An Icon of Motherhood" made her the most famous mother grizzly, maybe the most famous grizzly, in the world.[47]

Due to a lack of time today, I will start with a preliminary review of Mangelsen's article. Right now it has several bulleted lists that work much better as prose; in addition, much of the article lacks footnotes. Finally, the wording is rather awkward in several sections; I would suggest that the article be given a copy-edit. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 08:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have been very sick for a couple days. I am just feeling better today. I can work on the article today. I can also do a QPQ. I wasn't actually expecting anyone to work on this nomination until I had completed a QPQ but that's ok. When I saw you had removed the other nomination, it made perfect sense to me. Regarding the citations, every paragraph is cited, as per teaching by my mentor. You can just cite at the end of the paragraph; every line does not need cited. So, if you can explain what else needs cited? I think the only thing I missed what the indented quote which I will fix. Anyway, I will take a shot addressing the points you made in the article, thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC) These are the policies I follow for citations WP:CITEFOOT and MOS:LEADCITE which explain why the intro has none and why I cite at the end of paragraphs or lists. Unless, of course, the source changes mid-paragraph. Just FYI. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I did the QPQ. Still not feeling 100% but doing my best. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dawnleelynn, I hope you're feeling much better now. Thanks for doing the QPQ. Since this is a two-article nomination, you will need to provide a second QPQ—the requirement is for one QPQ to be supplied per nominated article. Narutolovehinata5, do you mean to continue the review, or should I try to find someone else? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I wasn't able to bring up due to a lack of time: the nominator doesn't appear to have any DYK credits so far, so technically a QPQ wasn't even required. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I have no idea what you're looking at, but DYKUpdateBot left six DYK credits on the nominator's talk page in 2018 alone, and there are more from 2017. QPQs are definitely required for this nominator, and one more will be needed for this nomination; I'm sure Dawnleelynn will submit another in due course now that she's aware of the need. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonsetNarutolovehinata5 BlueMoonset, I was pretty sure I needed at least one QPQ. Thanks for clarifying. Thanks for inquirying as well; I am feeling quite better. This is my first double article hook so I wasn't sure how many QPQ were needed. I will complete one tomorrow. Thanks for checking; I appreciate it. dawnleelynn(talk) 06:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

All of the suggestions above need to be checked for grammar and all feel a bit too cumbersome or complicated for DYK. I see some potential with ALT1, but the grammar has to be fixed first. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 10:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Review: These aren’t bad facts. My only issue is there is no source for the hook and only one source for the article. Jhenderson777 16:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

... that the Lorraine 12D was put into production before the design was finalized?(source: [48] page 9 (in french) Could somebody verify that please. [UsernameNeeded] 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Note. I might need help on reviewing. I am not familiar with the source being reliable or not. Also I don’t know what it says since it’s in French. I tried googling this particular engine to help find sources but I didn’t find much. Jhenderson777 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Petebutt may be able to help, he's done some work with this article recently. [UsernameNeeded] 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There isn't much available WYSIWYG I'm afraid. The engine was developed rapidly at the start of its production, that much is clear!--Petebutt (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(Not a full review) The article is presently ineligible because some non-lead paragraphs do not have inline citations, per D2 of the DYK Supplementary guidelines. The Variants section also has no sources. Also, as per the above, none of the hook content is sourced within the article. North America1000 11:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Opera singer sings opera roles, yes, but the Bayreuth-Wagner + Salzburg-Mozart connection is rather unusual, and first to sing Wagner then Mozart, as she did. We could also tell the sad story of her having to leave Germany and Austria in the 1930s, but I'd prefer to focus on what she was able to do. There's an image of a Bayreuth plaque, but I guess it's not god in small size. Best on 17 February, her birthday.

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC).

Can something better be suggested here? Honestly, as someone who has an interest in historical research myself, the hooks aren't very interesting to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion and suggestion: I concur with above, that these aren't interesting. May I suggest you to look into the coverage of her work, to find some interesting fact that she helped to uncover. DBigXrayᗙ 10:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A much better hook, but before I give it the go ahead, I'd need to first know if this is the consensus viewpoint or a minority one. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 23:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT2 is better than ALT1 and ALT0. Also, the quote from the source and the hotlinked source is missing above. Please provide along with translation if applicable. DBigXrayᗙ 10:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hook is supported by [50] (p24), which says "Ferrer i Mallol believes that "the coexistence of the three communities was based on segregation"... Therefore, she focuses on spatial, sexual and religious segregation imposed on the Mudejars". And Narutolovehinata5, my knowledge in this area is insufficient to know if this is a minority or majority view- does it matter for the purposes of this hook? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because promoting fringe topics on the main page, especially without proper context, tends to be frowned upon. I think since attribution is given in the hook, that problem might be resolved anyway, I just need to make sure. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 09:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT2:... that during a grand-jury investigation into land-sale fraud at New York City's Kissena Park, Queens borough president Joseph Bermel resigned and fled the U.S. the day before he was scheduled to testify? Source: NY Times 1908

Electric Telegraph Company

... that the Electric Telegraph Company operated the Monarch, the first dedicated cable-laying ship? Source: "The Company also decided to lay the cables themselves and for this purpose they purchased Monarch (1) and fitted her out, firstly on a temporary basis and later as the first ship to be permanently equipped for cable work." Haigh, p. 194

Ida Tarbell

... that ...? Source: Ida Tarbell's investigative journalism into Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller brought about "the dissolution of Standard Oil as a monopoly and lead to the Clayton Antitrust Act."

ALT1:... that ...? Source: Ida Tarbell was one of the original muckrakers, a term given by Theodore Roosevelt.

Improved to Good Article status by Auldhouse (talk). Self-nominated at 21:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC).

ALT1:... that when Becontree tube station first opened, there were no roads leading to it? Source: *Jackson, Alan A. (2018) [1973]. Semi-Detached London: Suburban Development, Life and Transport, 1900-39. Routledge. pp. 291–311. ISBN978-1-35117-512-8.

ALT2:... that there were no roads leading to Becontree tube station when it first opened? same source as above

Improved to Good Article status by Vincent60030 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC).

The problem with all three text proposals is that they lack context. They talk about roads, stations, but where are they? Becontree is just an area in of London, don't take it for granted that readers from other countries will be familiar with it. They will probably know well enough that London is the capital city of the United Kingdom, but not its sub-areas. Cambalachero (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK hooks appear alone in the main page, devoid of context. They need to be understood as standalone sentences. They must be short, but also avoid WP:EASTEREGG. Cambalachero (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Can a new hook be proposed here? Because as it is, it's honestly not very interesting. It's not exactly "hooky" by itself to ask someone not to leave an institution, unless the background behind the event was interesting in its own right, which doesn't seem to be seen in the hook. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't propose that as a DYK hook. It was simply a blurb I used when listing new articles WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I found it appealing, and wanted to avoid the "opera singer appears in opera" kind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I will be frank here: the hook is not very interesting to those who are not familiar with opera music. Most people do not know who Solti is, nor why he is significant. Gerda, you have to realize that perhaps a majority of Wikipedia's readers are not familiar with what goes on in the classical music scene, so it's not really a good idea to assume that readers know who most of these people are, or why they are important. I understand that the hook wording was a special request, but honestly right now it doesn't make much sense. Like the typical reader would ask: "who is this Solti person?" "why did Wendels want to leave the Frankfurt Opera?" "is leaving it a big deal"? I don't the hook proposal needs to be abandoned altogether though, all it needs is some additional context about the situation. That way, the typical Wikipedia reader would understand why Solti promising Wendels that she wouldn't leave the Frankfurt Opera was important. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We have a link to Solti, no? (One of the best-known conductors in the world, but this was early in his career. From his article: "Solti's Ring has twice been voted the greatest recording ever made".) And those not knowing him will not be interested in her either. The why, we simply don't know. I thought that her connection to someone internally famous who appeciated her so much that he asked would be good for her. I don't think if it was Kennedy you'd ask "who is this Kennedy person". Sigh. Back from glamour to local:

That doesn't sound like a better option at all. As I mentioned earlier, ALT0 can work, it just needs to be rephrased. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 14:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect Solti's main reason for asking for a promise was that he was getting the fledgling Frankfurt Opera off the ground and hoped that his singers would not use it as mere stepping stone to greater things. Wendels in fact never left the company and sang there for her entire 36 year career. I'll propose another hook below. The reference is the same as for the original hook. Voceditenore (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT1:... that Hans Werner Henze revised his award-winning radio operaEin Landarzt, closely based on a short story by Kafka, to both a monodrama and a stage version? Source: same, and booth upper links right

-Article recently created (6 Fby), long enough ( 3609 characters), neutral, hooks are cited in the article, no copyvio/closeparaphrasing, the hook is well within character limit (122 and 145 chars respectively), accurate, sourced, probably of interest, both musical and literature... no image used. Only a couple of things; I assume we don't have DAB-links on the main page so I've linked both hooks to the short story itself. Also, can we clarify what "after a short story means"—is it named after, based on? I don't think it's particularly important, but you've got lots of space to lay with, so a word of clarification wouldn't break the bank. Just awaiting Gerda's QPQ; I don't have any particular preference for the hook, so whatever you want—ALT0, I expect? It's all good. ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I replaced "after" by "closely based on" in both hooks. Sorry about the dab, I was a bit in a rush. - Will do qpq after looking at another ping and the watch list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: you probably didn't know that we usually don't hold for longer than 6 weeks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, no I didn't know. Last time I nominated, it took so long that I thought I might as well get in early. So I have to time this nomination precisely for the 1st week in June? Cnbrb (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Then they'll tell you that it's not new enough. - I see three ways: you go to WP:DYKTALK, explain and ask for an exception, or you make it a GA in June, - they are also eligible, or you find something connected, write on that in June, and mention this in the hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis Gerda. So, for any admins/approvers reading this, it would be very nice if this DYK, if approved, could be held until July 2019. Cnbrb (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

5x expanded. I think ALT1 is better than the main hook, but I'd suggest reordering it so that the station name is at the start, and perhaps link to Apollo 11 somewhere. The article text looks good and reasonably well-referenced (particularly for the text in the hook), but I want to take a bit more time to read through it before checking this off. @Cnbrb: I think this is your 6th DYK, so you need to do a QPQ review? (Note: I'm just going to do the review, the timing question is up to thee posting admin.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Brenva Glacier

... that when a huge rockfall near Mont Blanc covered part of the Brenva Glacier(pictured) in 1920, it caused it to advance 490 m (1,610 ft) over 20 years, whilst all other glaciers in the Alps were in retreat? Source 1: The 1920 deposit on the glacier caused an advance until 1940, the only one of this kind in the Alps.(cited in Abstract); Source 2: The 1920 avalanche augmented the debris cover in the ablation zone, causing the glacier to advance 490m between 1920 and 1941; in contrast, neighboring glaciers retreated from the mid-1920s onward. (Singh, page 117, first para.)

ALT1:... that the Brenva Glacier(pictured) near Mont Blanc in the Alps is the second longest glacier in Italy, at 6.7 mi (10.8 km)? Source: The Brenva valley glacier is the second largest on the Italian side of Mont Blanc with a surface area of about 7 square kilometers and about 6,700 meters long.(Aosta official tourism site)

Overall: Article moved to mainspace on February 6, and nominated on February 10. Length is adequate. Neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues detected. Photo is clear, and properly licensed on the commons. QPQ completed. First paragraph in the description section is missing a citation.Done

The last sentence in the first paragraph of the Rockfall and glacial advance section is not cited. Both hooks are cited and discussed in the article, however ALT0 is very wordy and may not be appealing. I suggest simplifying along the lines of the only glacier in the region to expand when others shrank. Flibirigit (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have nabaged to deal with one issue straight, and hope to deal with tbe rest over the next 24 hrs or so when I am back online. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Queens Botanical Garden

... that Queens Botanical Garden in New York City was built on top of landfill atop a creek? Source: NY Times 2001. "Most of its 39 acres consist of landfill dumped on a creek, which pocks the ground with soggy sinkholes."

Expanded eightfold, within policy, QPQ pending. Great article, worthy of having a pic featured on the DYK. The landfill angle is good; ALT0 feels a little clunky with its chain prepositions. ALT1 reads better, but I'd switch it to "on top of a landfill." I also wonder if it should read "Did you know that the Queens Botanical Garden was built..." It's tricky with New York City's Five Burroughs: we say "The Bronx" with a "the" while "Queens" doesn't get a "the." Yet we also say "The Bronx Zoo" and "The Queens Museum." Thoughts? Morganfitzp (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Morganfitzp, Thanks for the response. We say "the Queens Museum" and "the Bronx Zoo" because "the" is the definite article and we are referring to the museum, and the zoo. There's a reason why we say "The Bronx" instead of just "Bronx", but it has to do with rivers. I'm fine with saying "... that the Queens Botanical Garden in New York City is located atop landfill?" As for the QPQ, I will do it soon. epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour

Improved to Good Article status by MagicatthemovieS (talk). Self-nominated at 01:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC).

The article was promoted to GA on February 6, 2019. It is long enough and neutral in content. The image is clearly visible at size and holds the proper license. However, the hook is not neutral and lacks nuance. There are plenty of characters left to allow the addition of some explanation of her stance. Something about if and how sharia law applies to non-muslims should be added. QPQ also requires completion. I will return for a re-review when these are addressed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Please respond here so we can keep the conversation in one place. The hook is good now. Are you ok with my copy edits? WP:QPQ is one of the requirements of DYK nominations for experienced editors like yourself. You must review another DYK nomination to assist the project.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly object to the phrasing and framing of this hook, including the word "law" with sharia; it implies something that is not true. It's overly simplistic and creates possible BLP implications which are inappropriate for a biographical DYK. I suggest we find a more meaningful and less controversial hook. How about, ... that the Muslim feminist activist Linda Sarsour(pictured) has been involved in a number of protests against American President Donald Trump? That is neutral, accurate and doesn't create implications which shouldn't exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a different hook. Sarsour's stance on Sharia Law is just a talking point of conservative critics. It has very little to do with her career or activism. There are lots of other interesting things about Sarsour that would make better (and less partisan) hooks. Kaldari (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that I did not complete a COPYVIO check. Earwig flags several copyright violations.[54] Also, NorthBySouthBaranof and Kaldari are right. This hook is not neutral. I should have gone with my first instinct and rejected it outright. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Please respond to the above concerns, and propose a new hook, If you are unable to respond within the next three days, this nomination will be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 08:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It sounds a lot more neutral, but due to the sensitivity of the topic I'm uncomfortable participating in this nomination any further, as I only intended to ping the nominator due to a lack of response from them. Leaving the rest to the original reviewer Coffeeandcrumbs. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: This still fails WP:DYKHOOK which states hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. Support of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions is a very controversial stance. We cannot unduly focus on negative aspects of living individuals. If you would like I can suggest some new hooks and allow a new editor to review them. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: No claim about her controversial views will likely appear as neutral in a DYK hook without including a paragraph for context. May I suggest you focus on something she actively did and not about something she said. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You also must rephrase the portions of the article flagged in this Earwig's report to reduce the close paraphrasing. In general I have issues with the GA review which I have begun discussing with the GA reviewer on their talk page. Earwig's flags an unusually large number of lengthy quotes in the article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I removed several quotes from the article. Why must I mention the 2017 Women's March? Why can't I mention that Sarsour is a Muslim?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: You must include the 2017 Women's March because Sarsour was also a leader in that march and it was bigger! About ten times bigger! There is no reasonable excuse to emphasis the 2019 march and not include the 2017 march unless you are intentionally trying to draw a correlation between Sarsour's Muslim faith and her work in organizing the 2019 event. Which brings us to why you can't mention that she is a Muslim. This is because the fact she is a Muslim is not essential to understanding this hook. Again, this is unless you are trying to imply some connection between Islam and the Women's March? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: The [famous poster for the 2017 Women's March] depicts a Muslim woman, and the progressive movement as a whole is very Muslim-friendly. I do think that there is a deep connection between Islam and the Woman's March. I added mention of the 2017 Women's March to the hook. May I resore the mention of Sarosur's religious faith?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Alt 1 misses the point of why this is interesting, and isn't itself interesting at all. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Alt 2: ... that Netherland's Johan Ruijsink has won the Mosconi Cup, a United States vs. Europe pool tournament, as a member of both the European and US teams?This a) makes it clear why this is DYK-interesting, and b) provides enough context that people know what sort of stuff it's about. Also, c) people aren't "parts". :-) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

New enough and long enough. Hook's check, are cited, interesting and of appropriate length. Personally I'd un-wikilink 'mayor' as I think there are too many links in the hooks. Other than that just waiting on your QPQ; feel free to review my nomination if you like. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Guianan squirrel monkey

... that despite weighing less than 1500 grams, the Guianan squirrel monkey has a varied diet that includes seeds, nectar, gums, insects and even bats? Mittermeier, et al: "weight: 550-1400g (males) and 550-1200g (females)" and "Their diets were principally insects, fruit, flowers, nectar, seeds, gums, spiders, lizards and bird's eggs...The Guianan squirrel monkey has been seen eating a bat only once, so it evidently does not hunt for them systematically as does the Central American squirrel monkey."

Pacu jawi

... that in the traditional bull race of Tanah Datar, Indonesia, the jockey holds the tails of two bulls while they sprint across a muddy rice field(pictured)? Source: All of the sources basically describe the race this way

Reviewed: TBD

Comment: I think the image is high quality (as well as many alternative images in commons:Category:Pacu jawi), and I think this will be very attractive as the picture hook (aka lead hook).

Created by HaEr48 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC).

This will make a great picture hook but there's an immediate obvious problem – the picture doesn't show the jockey holding the tails of both bulls; he's holding the yoke instead. Looking at this source, perhaps the hook should focus on the biting of the tail, to get the animal to start running (pictured left). That source calls the animals "cows" so we need to clarify whether they are cows, bulls or both. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Alt-pic-1

Alt-pic-2

@Andrew Davidson: Re picture, indeed looking closer he's holding the yoke (at least his left hand). How about using either of these pictures (see right)? As for bulls or cows, I believe the problem is that the Indonesian language only has the gender-neutral word for cow and bull (sapi), and Indonesian writers writing in English (such as the author of that page you linked) often uses "cow" to refer to the species without realizing that it might be taken to mean the female cattle. The source that talks specifically about gender (cited in the article as Febrianti (2013)) says this: "Sapi yang ikut berpacu biasanya sapi jantan" (trans: "The cattles that joins the race are usually male cattles"; I read Indonesian but you can verify my translation with Google Translate). HaEr48 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Dolo hospital airstrike

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 10:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citation checks out, no apparent copyvios. Chetsford, QPQ needed. Also, please clip the newspapers.com articles so that those without subscriptions can also access the content. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford, could you also clip the newspapers.com articles so that others can read them? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Note that your clipping request above is not part of the DYK rules, and also that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is advised to "not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". North America1000 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, they are not being rejected, nor are they "difficult or costly to access". Rather, newspapers.com provides a simple way of letting other people access them: clipping. Moreover, since at least one of the articles supports the hook fact, I think it is reasonable to ask Chetsford to clip the articles in question. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I've been a bit behind and haven't had a chance to get around to clipping all the articles. I'm not 100% sure I know how to do it, but I'll figure it out and get to it ASAP. Chetsford (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Frank Dux

... that major general John K. Singlaub said that Frank Dux's book The Secret Man, which states Dux was recruited in a public toilet to work for the CIA, was "an insult" to the reader's intelligence? Source: "Full Mental Jacket". Soldier of Fortune (August 1996): 37–39 (I can email you a scan of the article if you like)

Frank Dux: Improved to Good Article status by Damien Linnane (talk). Self-nominated at 01:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC). The Secret Man created on 11 February 2019 by Damien Linnane. Self-nominated.

Comment - not a review, but I'm pretty sure you only need 2 QPQs at best unless you're planning to break a record. Juxlos (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Juxlos: Yeah I'm aware of that. I was hoping if I reviewed some more I might gets someone's attention and get a review of my own sooner than usual (plus reducing the backlog isn't exactly a bad thing haha). Doesn't look like it's working so far yet. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

GAs are inherently longer and trickier to review plus a lot of Los Angeles Times means European editors (like me) have a lot of GDPR blocks. Juxlos (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is new and long enough, but two of the three sections (Synopsis and Background) are unsourced. They are presumably based on Malexander (BYU)'s reading of the book? I am not that experienced as a Wikipedian, so I don't know how this is supposed to be handled - do movie plots have sources other than the movie? The plot section of Back to the Future is unsourced - maybe this is normal? Presumably at least the book itself should be cited here? Googling text snippets suggests that the text is original, so there doesn't seem to be any copyright problem. The link to references #2-5 don't work for me, they lead to a page that says "Sorry, we are unable to retrieve the document you requested." The hook text seems good to me. It should have Eloise Greenfield linked instead of bare. However, the hook fact does not have an inline citation. Anotherdoon (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

John Harding (photographer)

... that 34 years after John Harding published his photobook Siblings, he published a supplement under the exact same title? Source for the 2016 book Siblings and its relationship to the 1982 book: OCLC957298471. More info on the 1982 book Siblings: your choice among ISBN3-88184-052-4. The newer book is rather obscure; if you'd like to see more evidence for it, there's this illustrated introduction (text in Japanese) from a Japanese retailer.

ALT1:... that Véronique Aka was the first female to be elected president of an Ivorian regional council? Source: ALT0

ALT2:... that Véronique Aka is the president of Réseau des Femmes africaines Ministres et Parlementaires de Côte d'Ivoire, a network of female parliamentarians that unites women and fight female poverty?

Spectral G-index

Source: "the G-Index is proposed because CCT is not a perfect measure of blue light... The G-index value is directly related to blue light content, and so should be specified when light pollution effects on wildlife or on star visibility are a concern.[55]

Created by Mehrajmir13 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC).

To heavily borrow from Uanfala over another clone-DYK; that one of the remotest valleys of Jammu and Kashmir (mentioned in the article, itself) lacks electricity or road connections isn't anywhere near interesting or curious enough for a DYK hook. There are hundreds of thousands, if not more, villages out there in the world that don't have such basic infrastructure. This is neither unusual nor interesting. It's even expected for such a remote area of the Himalayas. Now, if there were some new project to build a road to those villages, that would be something that you'd expect to find something DYK-worthy in. ∯WBGconverse 13:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Mags Portman, Greg Owen

... that sexual health doctor Mags Portman and activist Greg Owen worked together to provide accessible HIV medication, preventing thousands of new HIV diagnoses in Britain? Source: "Dr Portman played a critical role in helping Owen, by approaching the General Medical Council (the governing body for doctors) to seek clarification on whether clinicians can recommend treatments to their patients that the NHS doesn't offer. The council's reply — that not only can doctors, but they must — changed everything." Strudwick 2019

Víctor Manuel Vázquez Mireles

... that U.S. citizens are prohibited from engaging in business activities with Víctor Manuel Vázquez Mireles? Source: "... Other individuals designated today who have faced federal indictments for violating U.S. narcotics laws include Dimas Gonzalez Rodriguez, Victor Manuel Vasquez Mireles, and Rogelio Gonzalez Pizana ... U.S. persons are prohibited from conducting financial or commercial transactions with the designees ..." (OFAC)

Created by Zingarese (talk). Self-nominated at 00:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

Interesting ensemble, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. I am not enthusiastic about the hooks, because both are what one reviewer says. I'd like a little more in the article, especially links to the specific pieces rather than the composers, and perhaps a bit more lead? Perhaps years for the recordings? - Please avoid "current" shich will still be there in five years, if nobody updates. It would be better to reference to Fanfare directly (at least additionally), not the quartet's website. - And then perhaps say something more factual in the hook, with a short quote? - How do you feel about an infobox, compare Arditti Quartet? Also waiting for qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: The lead is a summary of the information in the main body of the article and does not need citations as long as the information is cited elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It's even against policy to have any cites in the lead. Articles that include them should be rewritten to cite the information elsewhere. — LlywelynII 12:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved to namespace in timely fashion; barely long enough (~1900 elig. chars.); QPQ done; Earwig finds minimal copyvio (there are only so many ways to express the idea "at the end of"); initially thought that "five years ago" in sources and the 2004 date didn't line up, but this is all from ten years ago so it's fine. Numerous grammatical mistakes in the article and even several in hook above, but they're fixed now.

The problem is that the hook is very cute and probably why the article was written in the first place but (a)doesn't really reference the page name or the song itself in any real way (MOS:EGG) and(b),however unintentionally, endorses the racist secessionist/segregationist idea at the center of the controversy. The South will not rise again the way the people who say that phrase originally meant it. Nor should it. Nor should it be endorsed, even pomo memey metaironically.

I'll ask for some feedback. If the admins here (@BlueMoonset, @Yoninah, @SMcCandlish, et al.) are fine with an April Fools' easter egg and this kinda Trumpbating, everything else in the article is fine and good to go. @EEng: am I being a stick-in-the-mud? or is this not funny enough to be worth the squicky tagline? — LlywelynII 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

... that the steeple of the Submarine Memorial Chapel in Pearl Harbor contains the ship's bell from the USS Argonaut, donated while the chapel was under construction and before she was sunk during World War II? [57]

Frog Service

... that Josiah Wedgwood "was very unwilling to disfigure" his Frog Service with "this reptile", but Catherine the Great insisted it was on all 952 pieces? Source: "Upon every piece there was also to be painted the image of a green toad or frog, as is elsewhere stated. He was very unwilling to disfigure the service with this reptile, but was told it was not to be dispensed with, because the ware was intended for the use of a palace that bore its name", p. 211 here. 952 pieces etc here (expand curator's cmts

Reviewed: coming

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 00:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

Johnbod, Great...hm, can I assume a tweak that small won't need another editor to review? If we don't, you're good to go once qpq is filled in. Ping me in case I miss it going by on my watchlist! Really interesting article, nice work! valereee (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Alternative hook suggestions would be welcome - I know this one's slightly too long, but that's because the article name is long! Apologies in advance that all the sources in the article are in Portuguese, I can't find any English-language sources!

Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 17:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC).

Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and well referenced. Hook is interesting and supported by sources. Portuguese sources are not a problem. I write a lot about Chinese topics, and English sources are usually hard to come by. No copyvio issues. Hook is a bit long, and I suggest removing "on the road between São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro" to make it shorter, as that is not very interesting. Image is freely licensed. Awaiting QPQ. -Zanhe (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Thanks for the review! I've added ALT1, how does that sound? I'll try to do the QPQ later today. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

William Thorne (philatelist)

... that among William Thorne's award-winning stamp collection was a unique block of four of the United States 1869 24c stamp with an inverted centre that was discovered in Liverpool by the "Upside Down Man"?

ALT1:... that American stamp collector William Thorne owned a unique block of four of the United States 1869 24c stamp with an inverted centre showing the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence?

Tu Jida

... that after Tu Jida experienced Japanese aerial bombing at the age of ten, he studied aircraft design and came to be known as the "father of the J-7 fighters"? Source: several, including CNTV: "Tu Jida, father of J-7 fighters, passes away", and Phoenix News: "When I was ten and in grade five, the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out and Japanese warplanes bombed [my hometown] Shaoxing" ... "building aircraft became his main ambition"

Date and (excluding the tables and bullets) expansion fine. However the hooks do need to say that this is snooker. I do prefer the ALT however it needs to be reworded as the neither the article nor the source says it was because they were snoring "too loudly". QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. @Lee Vilenski: just need to sort out the hooks then ping me when it's ready for re-review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Venetian Renaissance architecture

View of Venice from woodcut, popular guide through the early part of the Renaissance

... that a woodcut by Jacopo de' Barbari was the definitive resource detailing the appearance of the City of Venice for much of the 16th century? Source: I don't have the exact quote, it was the whole of the first page and now google wont let me see it again, sorry, but it was the first thing said in the book, it begins something like, "In 1500, Anton Kolb published a birdseye woodcut of Venice" and goes on about how it was important through the century for at least one page of text

ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 14:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC).

Comment I don't have a problem with the hook, but "popular guide through the early part of the Renaissance" is dubious. The woodcut is extremely large (Height: 132.7 cm (52.2 ″); Width: 277.5 cm (109.2 ″) - wider than a king-size bed sheet is long) and would have been pretty expensive. In fact the image metadata rightly says "The View was very expensive when published and most examples were probably displayed on walls". And 1500 on is not really "the early part of the Renaissance". Plus it's too long for a DYK caption. I'd just say "de Barbari'sMap of Venice, 1500". Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Printing and map making 500 years ago was not the same thing as it was today. It was a grand work. It took 3 years to complete, as long as Van Goghs whole art career. It was one of the finest works, sometimes claimed as the finest (see what I am getting at), of its kind in the whole world at the time. After completing it, the artist was given a job as a portrait artist for an emperor[63] It represents not only the plan of the city, but the Venetian culture at the time[64] Check out the artwork -->File:Jacopo de' Barbari - View of Venice - alternative.jpg, It doesn't look like much for today but it was a masterpiece in that day. So annoyed that the book will not show me the first page again. I'm sure another hook can be worked but, I suppose I just wanted to plug the map, which will not be considered impressive at a cursory glance, while the impressiveness of the buildings will speak for themselves in modern pictures. 500 years later and in a library that claims 80kms of documents specific to Venice, it remains the definitive source for the Venice of that day. (or start reading here-->)Check out the next best map appearing 1557[65] (looks like a modern day school book drawing, so I think that establishes, but so unfair that it wont show me the first page again when it will give me like a dozen other pages through the book! I was so bored by the first page I swear.) So, I could go on and on about it, but needless to say, the best plug for the subject is to plug the map. It is the only part of the article that will not be understood without explanation, as with yourself. What about, (new reference added)ALT2 "...that Jacopo de Barbaris map Venetie MD, remains a definitive resource on buildings of the Venetian Renaissance...?" ~ R.T.G 11:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You should do an article on it. It does in fact look very impressive today - the British Museum print room has one framed on the wall. As I said, personally I have no problem with the hook, just the caption. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note - the above is not a review I've edited the article, & so won't be reviewing. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's still too long, or you'd rather something on the architecture? What about this (I may have to expand but it was definitely in some of the sources), ALT3"...that the Doge's Palace is sometimes argued to have evoked the Rennaissance in architecture...?" Or to that effect but have preceded Italy, which is also interesting, and maybe better I guess. Yeah there might be an article in that map I was impressed with it though it's not modern standards. 3 meters wide and 3 years, all those rooves, it's a real work. Note the factory-esque roof. ~ R.T.G 17:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sharda Mehta

... that Sharda Mehta was one of the first two women graduates of modern-day Gujarat state of India? Source: "Sujata, Menon (2013). Sarkar, Siddhartha, ed. "An Historical Analysis of the Economic Impact on the Political Empowerment of Women In British India". International Journal of Afro-Asian Studies. Universal-Publishers. 4 (1): 17–18. ISBN978-1-61233-709-8. ISSN 0974-3537 Google Books

I would still like to see the WP:PROSELINE paragraphs rewritten. As it stands, it really doesn't suit the rest of the article. FYI, the ping does not work if you have to edit the templateSounderBruce 08:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford:The subject is interesting. New, long enough, within policy, well-cited article. Hook is interesting but inline citation for hook in the article is missing. The citation is at the end of paragraph. Should be also at the hook sentence. Image is free but would not look good at 100x100 resolution. Please submit a cropped image of her face only which might look better. These are small issues. Ping me after addressing the issues. Thank you for writing this article and nominating at DYK. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)